Posted on 12/08/2003 7:30:39 AM PST by dead
OF the making of books there is no end, especially in the US on political topics.
Just now, though, there is a striking difference in the range.
Half the new titles read as if they had come straight from the Socialist Workers' Party bookshop. What about The Bush Haters' Handbook or Thieves in High Places: They've Stolen Our Country and it's Time to Take it Back. The theme of whole shelves is easy to summarise: George Bush is a lying, cheating, thieving dumb scumbag - and he was never elected President anyway.
If you believe, as all sensible persons should, that the liberal left has nothing of value to contribute to debate, this does simplify browsing. There is no need to waste time with books whose authors' envenomed dementia shrieks from the title page.
There is a new joke in Washington which also captures the anti-Bush mood. In a school for the children of the affluent, a teacher asks her class of little boys what their fathers do. The answers are predictable: lawyer, doctor, accountant - until little Johnny. "My dad's a stripper in a gay bar." "What!" "Yes, miss. He takes off all his clothes and people do unmentionable things to him." The schoolmistress rapidly changes the subject, but at the end of the lesson she asks Johnny if his father is really a gay stripper. "Oh no, miss, of course not. But you couldn't expect me to admit to the other kids that my dad works in the Bush administration."
All this will come as tidings of great joy to Bush haters international. In Paris, they will be delighted to learn that even in the imperial capital, the bookstores are aflame with revolt; surely the regime of the hated tyrant Bush must be approaching its end?
Well, actually, no.
On the contrary; the book wars will assist Mr Bush's re-election.
Most normal Americans do not want to hate their President and they resent those who try to incite them to do so.
All presidents have an electoral advantage. They are not merely politicians; they are the commander-in-chief and the head of state, which enables them to rise above partisanship and to take on some of the attributes of monarchy. On polling day, this is probably worth about 5pc. In close elections, that can be decisive. In the last century, only three presidents who were themselves elected to office were unseated at the next election.
The problems of attacking an incumbent president even made matters easier for Bill Clinton, who was an implausible monarch. In politics, hatred is a bad counsellor. Though Mr Clinton may have been a liar and an adulterer, he was not a drug dealer or a murderer.
In other circumstances, it might have been possible to undermine President Clinton by a light touch of mockery. But Mr Clinton's hard-right critics, not themselves long on humour, were not satisfied with laughing at his moral inadequacies. They were determined to portray him as a monster. This did not work.
President Bush is now the focus of hatred and wild allegations. This is equally unlikely to damage him, for its sole appeal is to those who would die under torture rather than vote Republican. It is also helping to ensure that when the Democratic Party selects its presidential candidate, it will choose the figure least likely to have a chance of beating Mr Bush. The magnetism of hatred is pulling the Democratic Party away from electability.
At moments, Howard Dean, the Democrats' front-runner, has seemed to revel in the hatred. Recently, he even appeared to give credence to the canard that the Saudis had given Mr Bush advance warning about 11 September, which the President disregarded because he wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and hand it over to big oil. That is as loony a tune as the certifiable ultra-right ever tried to play at President Clinton's non-funeral. The difference is that the Republicans' deranged supporters were never allowed near a presidential campaign, let alone at the head of the ticket.
Mr Dean was expected to make the early running in the Democrats' campaign by enthusing party activists. Then, as the serious candidates gained momentum, he would fade. That has not happened. The supposedly serious candidates have been bad at creating momentum. This is especially true of Joe Lieberman, the one Democrat who does look like a plausible president.
Mr Dean, on the other hand, has not slowed down. His team had a clever idea: to use the internet to raise support and money. As a result, Howard Dean appears to have more of both than the other Democratic challengers put together.
It makes sense for any candidate to appeal to his party's more extreme supporters in order to persuade them to turn out in the primary elections, where not that many people vote. Once the primaries are over, the victor will normally move back towards the centre, to have the best chance of winning the presidency. But Mr Dean seems so confident that he is already making the occasional centrist gesture, even before the primaries have started.
The other week, he reminded his party that it was necessary to win the support of southern white males: the sort of chaps who would have a Confederate flag in the back of their pick-up truck. Howard Dean was right. It would be very hard for the Democrats to capture the presidency without carrying some southern states. But all his Democratic rivals chose to ignore the psephological truth of Mr Dean's assessment, and tried to use the Confederate flag to damage him.
It has not succeeded. A lot could still go wrong for George Bush between now and the first Tuesday in November. In Iraq, he is at the mercy of events which he cannot control. But on present evidence, his political opponents seems determined to do everything possible to ensure his re-election.
Perot was not the first one by a long shoot; he was only one among many. He did not predict....he repeated.
Bush II will make it happen.
Simplistic.
Bush II is adding to Federal spending at a much higher clip than Clinton. Bush II is not a conservative, but an illiberal, whose genuine sincerity and earnestness have prevented some conservatives from seeing the disaster to which he is leading the Republican Party.
Is there any truth to the statement that Congress controls the purse strings?
There is some truth to it, but Bush II pushed very hard for the prescription drug bill. It would not have passed without that support. And, of course, Bush had the option of vetoing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.