Posted on 04/12/2003 11:03:23 AM PDT by qam1
Gods aides never wrong
Im struck by how much is written, not about the policies and actions of the nation, but about the president, George W. Bush.
That should not be surprising. More and more, weve seen the rise of the "imperial presidency." In this administration, where the party of the president exercises unrestrained control of Congress and the Supreme Court, ever more power is concentrated in the one man who heads that administration.
Theres something more something I dont associate with an American presidency, or with the leadership of a democracy. Thats the personalization of governments actions and policies. This president talks in terms of "I" and "me." Where one would expect him to say "this country," "United States policy" or even "we," hes given to phrases, like "Im running out of patience" and "Im giving Saddam one more chance."
Such language is usually reserved for emperors and popes. Its called the "imperial we." I remember, in the Dominican Republic, the president was given to such excessive displays as the billboard at the capitols airport greeting visitors with his picture and the words, "Trujillo Y Dios", (notice whose name came first). But that was a democracy in name only.
Perhaps Mr. Bush should use such terms. Despite published polls which sometimes raise the perception of his popularity, his policies are very much his own.
The president, elected to office by a minority of popular vote (among those who did bother to vote), following an issueless campaign in which he described himself as a "compassionate conservative;" selected by one swing vote on the Supreme Court, turned out to be a genuine radical defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as " marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional; b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions; c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change; d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs, as the radical right."
One would have expected that the Bush regime and the president would have dropped sharply in the polls, as his government changed the definition of science, tossed aside centuries of international diplomacy, treated civil rights as an inefficient drag on an ever- increasing "big government," scorned the environment, protected multinational corporations at the expense of workers and investors, redistributed wealth that could have (should have) met the needs of the people for schools, medical care, infrastructure, roads, bridges, tax reduction for state and local governments and started a war for questionable reasons.
What sustains his personal popularity, I believe, is that he presents a character of complete assurance and sincerity. Even as his policies and actions contradict his words, he really believes what he says. He knows hes right. He has no need to consider the opinion of others if it does not agree. He checks with his God every morning. Theres no need to listen to public opinion, world opinion or expert opinion that says he might be wrong. To a person convinced hes acting for God, theres no need for a second opinion.
You want to trust a man whos really sure of himself, especially in times of fear and crisis. A guy who prays regularly cant be all bad.
Unfortunately, that also describes, Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition, Osama bin Laden and lots of other religious fanatics who were never wrong.
We should thank George Bush for showing us how dangerous it is to turn the government of a democracy over to a fundamentalist religious absolutist and remember that lesson at the next presidential election.
Harold Brohinsky is a noted area civil-rights advocate and self-proclaimed "unreconstructed, unrepentant, Eleanor Roosevelt, New Deal Democrat." He lives in Plattsburgh. He can be reached by e-mail: hbrohinsky@msn.com
At least this joker can admit the root cause for the stream of excuses the liberals offer to hate a president who threatens to try and restore this nation to it's former foundation, despite the terroristic attacks of liberals such as this author delivers in this piece.
Donating to the FreeRepublic will keep the bright beacon of Freedom shining so that our Troops and the world will know we stand with them. |
|
|
Please join us.
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
FMCDH
And this guy says Bush can have his way because of a republican congress. Has he ever heard of Estrada?
In other words, "I'm a bleeding heart, pinko Democrat from the Jurassic Era".
Now, there's a load of hogwash for you. These guys are a bunch of malcontents; communists who long for total control as long as its they who "are in control". Leftists tend to exaggerate when they think they can get away with it. Socialism truly is a disease. I think he means "centuries of failed international diplomacy." The turd must be totally ignorant of the great "failures" of international diplomacy that occurred in the 20th century, like WWI and WWII, and some of the key figures that engineered those failures - like Neville Chamberlain, the prototype appeaser - and like none other than Mr. Brohinsky's hero, Bill The Rat Clinton, who's utter incompetance in foreign affairs has greatly contributed to the problems in the Middle East and North Korea. Its the appeasers like Jimmy (Every little Dictator's Favorite Butt Boy) Carter who resort to diplomacy with madmen that always ends up getting good men and women killed - undoing the damage.
Get some help.
You are one sick dude.
I wonder if this guy was upset that Clinton didn't say
"We never had sex with that woman"
So he probably, like, thinks he's right and stuff.
</whiney lieberal translator off>
Any bets to the contrary - that this whiney lieberal sounds just like the teachers in the Snoopy cartoons on TV?
So he probably, like, thinks he's right and stuff.
I am sure,
But what does this guy want? Leaders who are not confindent, sincere or unsure of their positions? Plus he claims he is an "unreconstructed, unrepentant, Eleanor Roosevelt, New Deal Democrat." but according to him if (god help us) he was ever in a position of power if national or international public opinion was opposite of his beliefs he would have to "Repent" and pass laws and/or implement policies that go against his beliefs.
Which is bogus, I bet he is still upset the Clinton's failed at socializing medicine even though the vast majority of people were against 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.