The psychopathology of Bush hatred

The Bush hatred we are seeing in the media today belongs in the long catalogue of human psychopathology -- not rational behavior. The latest version is the shoe-throwing incident in Iraq. Iraq happens to be a hot war zone, in which tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed by hidden bombs. Bush' protective detail had no way of knowing whether an assassinaton attempt was under way, in just the way Saddam tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush, Sr. At the end of his two terms of office, the President flew to Iraq, into harm's way, knowing the dangers, to hold an open press conference.

But our media harbor such bitter hatred for him that they turned a potential bomb-throwing incident --- by one of their own --- into a joke, just another reason to sneer at the President. If anybody threw a cream pie at Obama, screaming headlines would be launched for days afterward. Nothing but sneers followed the potential attack on George W. Bush, which he fended off with his usual grace and humor. I have never known a US president to be treated as disgracefully as this one. The political case against him is based almost entirely on media falsehoods, slanders, and greed for power. Not much rationality there.

Our public melodrama is therefore being driven, not by facts and reason, but by the most primitive emotions that prey on human minds. Human brains haven't changed much in the last thirty thousand years. Homo sapiens is a lot more prosperous species than ever, but prosperity just allows those ancient demons to come out more freely. If we were huddled by a small fire in a cave, hungry and miserable, we could not indulge our fantasies as much as the pop media now allow themselves to do. Prosperity permits our primitive urges to flourish on the public stage.

President George W. Bush is being crucified in the public square in spite of his plain decency and goodness, and in spite of his remarkable success in winning two difficult wars to protect this nation from harm. All wars are hard; all wars involve mistakes and self-correction. All wars, if they are to be won, come at a cost.

While it is natural enough for conservatives to be upset by the blatant unfairness of the propaganda media --- indeed, by their visible madness --- if we just take a little mental distance, we can easily see an ancient anthropological drama: The crucifixion of the reigning king, along with the messianic glorification of a new one, who will surely rescue us from our media-driven despair. (Of course the new king will also grow weaker in time, in spite of his charismatic magic ...) This is the stuff of Shakespeare and Sophocles. George W. Bush's "head is bloody but unbowed," to quote the poem Invictus, ("undefeated') the Victorian answer to political witchhunts.

The novelist Mary Renault described the whole ordeal in her classic story, The King Must Die. Renault based her tale on legends of royal sacrifice from the ancient Mediterranean world --- in Greece, Asia Minor, Crete, Italy, and elsewhere. Read it if you want to understand Bush hatred and Obama worship. Her source was Sir James Fraser's remarkable book, The Golden Bough. While anthropologists have backed off Fraser's claim that king sacrifice is universal, the respected scholar James D. Brown argues that the evidence favors "Oedipal rebellion" as a universal among native peoples studied over more than a century. We no longer hang our kings physically, but the Left and the media act just like the lynch mobs of old. Listen to their voices and you'll hear the ancient roar of the mob.

We can watch the tragicomedy of our psychopolitics unfold and still keep some perspective. Think of it as a stage play like King Lear, and pray that reason prevails in the end. The Leftist media are actors playing the ancient role of the politically envious, who exist in every tribal culture where the head of the clan sleeps uneasily, fearful of plots and assassination attempts. All politics is not just local, as the Washington saying goes, but deep down it is tribal.

What is hopeful today is what was hopeful at the American founding: the use of constitutional means to channel our loves and hates into a fairly reasonable course of common action. The majority of Americans are pretty sane and rational; they don't trust the political class, and they are deserting the Big Media in the tens of millions even now. The American Founders knew all about vulgar mobs, and lived to see them in the French Revolution of 1789, with Napoleon rising on top of the revolutionary chaos to explode into a mass war of conquest in Europe. The Founders despised all that. They designed the Constitution to steer a steady course in spite of mobs and demagogues. It has worked magnificently for two centuries, and with luck and courage, it will hold.

Alexander Hamilton famously said, "The people? The people is a great beast!" But that was not accurate: We are all "the people," as the Declaration of Independence tells us. "The people" are the source of all good and bad things. The people -- properly balanced by a constitutional apparatus -- have brought prosperity that was unimaginable two hundred years ago. The people harbor wisdom and common sense in a way that snobbish elites soon forget. Conservatism is skeptical about human nature, but not cynical or despairing. Nor do we look to messianic leaders like Barack Obama to solve our problems. We look to muddle through, to give individuals the space to grow and succeed, to stand against the mobs, to fail at times, and then to fight again.

Whenever conservatives see yet another mob movement from the Left, we feel it is our obligation to stand in opposition. It is not unpatriotic to criticize the messiah of the moment -- though the Left will say so. It is our duty. We can do so with reason, with humor, and with clear thinking about the bad ideas the Left seems to carry around like a scratchy case of the fleas.

President Bush is not a theoretical politician. He is a practical man. He has constantly made the best decisions by his lights, sometimes against his own ideals, because reality sometimes makes things like war necessary; sometimes it makes massive bailouts necessary. The conservative question is always, "What is the realistic alternative?"

The end product of conservative politics is a mix of realism and idealism. Bush has liberated some fifty million Muslims, including one Arab journalist who just hurled his trendy hush puppies at him in an ancient gesture of contempt. That man is alive today because of George W. Bush -- Saddam would have fed him screaming into a plastic shredder. Compared to Obama and the corruptocrats, Bush will soon look like an American hero. Just watch it happen.

RE “His popularity dipped after his reelection”

GWB was not that popular even in 2004 but Kerry was an idiot. Republicans had a great convention show including clips of Reagan funeral , and the Swift Boat Veterans for truth showed Kerry as the fake he was. GWB second term was a disaster, he even tried to screw up supreme court with Harriet Meyers. Except Alito and Roberts looking back maybe having that idiot Kerry make the D party look bad would have been better than this.

Your point and counterpoint between Christianity and Islam proves my point. There is only one God. The Christian faith is our belief about Him and His Triune nature, and the Mooselimb "faith" is their opinion, but we're all worshiping Him and only Him.

If they have a "god" that is different from our God, then you're saying that there are more gods than one. There are not. It is the faiths that are different, not God. Do not confuse religion and God. They are not the same thing.

At the time I would have blown a gasket if Kerry had won Ohio and thus the election despite losing the popular vote.

I believe GOP would have made gains in 2006 and in 2008 Kerry would’ve been out on his butt. Unfortunately our new President might have ended up being McLame but hopefully some better people would’ve run in the better political climate. There would still be a GOP Congress and the Obamamania would have been forestalled until 2012.

The 2 Court seats would’ve been the only negative. Hopefully O’Connor would have stayed or one of both them would’ve quit right after the election to allow Bush to replace them. Although the Senate rats might have filibustered such an action.

At the time I was for Harriet Meyers, she seemed fine to me. In retrospect it was a real boneheaded play. And since she’s so close to Bush it’s doubtful she’s a real conservative.

George Bush, the man, is a decent and good man of success. George Bush, the president, is an abysmal failure who has not secured any peace for this nation let alone won any war!

Yes some of them HERE obviously hate the man.

If you aren’t among them then my factual statement doesn’t include you.

It is also factual that a boatload of conservatives stayed home, which is their right to do.

Of course Sarah Palin helped very many to turn out who would have otherwise stayed home or just simply not marked a presidential selection or alternatively, written in a name. Without her the loss would have been much worse.

I don’t know what the problem is with what I wrote.

It wasn’t about blaming anyone for the loss.

It was about Bush hatred by both Leftists and conservatives and my comments regarding that particular thing.

I profoundly disagree with him on several issues. I note where he’s done some good, conservative things...while reminding he didn’t run as a conservative but as a “compassionate conservative”...major difference.

This article was about unreasoning Leftist hatred, and I said some conservatives exhibit same.

A poster even argued it was appropriate literally to HATE him for areas he’s differed with us on. That was an example of what I was saying. DUH.

So be it (conservative Bush hatred) you say, even though you’re not among the haters.

Okay...

Boston.com / Politics / Campaign 2000 / News

http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Bush_plans_new_defense_of_tax_cut+.shtml

Bush’s 2000 Tax-Cut Promises , President Made Good On Tax-Cut Promise, But Critics Cry Deficit - CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/30/eveningnews/main639550.shtml

You know, you are funny.

Congressional Republicans wrote the tax cut bill, not Bush?? Why, how can this be?? I thought every President wrote Congressional bills...

/sarcasm

Back to truth and reality...

As if we needed reminding of that which we remember so well...

Bush built his 2000 Campaign around the proposal to cut taxes across the board by 1.3 trillion.

I remember Ann Richards warning the Dems that Bush was like a machine mentioning tax cuts every other word and they’d better not take it lightly.

Mentioning his issues every other word is what got him elected Gov. of Texas and sent Ma Richards back home, so she should know.

I shouldn’t bother, but the two links I provide document the reporting even by Libs that Bush both ran on, and delivered, massive tax cuts.

Then they turn around and try to blame his tax cuts for the deficit.

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.