Skip to comments.What Makes The Bush Haters So Mad? (They're Two-Bong-Hit William Blakes?)
Posted on 09/16/2003 3:48:13 PM PDT by .cnI redruM
Bill Moyers may have his politics, but his deferential demeanor and almost avuncular television style made him the Mr. Rogers of American politics. So when he leaves his neighborhood to go to a "Take Back America" rally and denounces George W. Bush's "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class," leading a "right-wing wrecking crew" engaged in "a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States way of governing," you know that something is going on.
That something is the unhinging of the Democratic Party. Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around. An otherwise reasonable man, Julian Bond of the N.A.A.C.P., speaks of Bush's staffing his Administration with "the Taliban wing of American politics." Harold Meyerson, editor at large of The American Prospect, devotes a 3,000-word article to explaining why Bush is the most dangerous President in all of American history his only rival being Jefferson Davis.
The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from. Bush's manner is not particularly aggressive. He has been involved in no great scandals, Watergate or otherwise. He is, indeed, not the kind of politician who radiates heat. Yet his every word and gesture generate heat a fury and bitterness that animate the Democratic primary electorate and explain precisely why Howard Dean has had such an explosive rise. More than any other candidate, Dean has understood the depth of this primal anti-Bush feeling and has tapped into it.
Whence the anger? It begins of course with the "stolen" election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy. But that is only half the story. An illegitimate President winning a stolen election would be tolerable if he were just a figurehead, a placeholder, the kind of weak, moderate Republican that Democrats (and indeed many Republicans) thought George Bush would be, judging from his undistinguished record and tepid 2000 campaign. Bush's great crime is that he is the illegitimate President who became consequential revolutionizing American foreign policy, reshaping economic policy and dominating the political scene ever since his emergence as the post-9/11 war President.
Before that, Bush could be written off as an accident, a transitional figure, a kind of four-year Gerald Ford. And then came 9/11. Bush took charge, declared war, and sent the country into battle twice, each time bringing down enemy regimes with stunning swiftness. In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of presidential will.
That will, like it or not, has remade American foreign policy. The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy is the subtitle of a new book by two not very sympathetic scholars, Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay. The book is titled America Unbound. The story of the past two years could just as well be titled Bush Unbound. The President's unilateral assertion of U.S. power has redefined America's role in the world. Here was Bush breaking every liberal idol: the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, deference to the U.N., subservience to the "international community." It was an astonishing performance that left the world reeling and the Democrats seething. The pretender had not just seized the throne. He was acting like a king. Nay, an emperor.
On the domestic front, more shock. Democrats understand that the Bush tax cuts make structural changes that will long outlive him. Like the Reagan cuts, they will starve the government of revenue for years to come. Add to that the Patriot Act and its (perceived) assault on fundamental American civil liberties, and Bush the Usurper becomes more than just consequential. He becomes demonic.
The current complaint is that Bush is a deceiver, misleading the country into a war, after which there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction. But it is hard to credit the deception charge when every intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had these weapons and, indeed, when the weapons there still remain unaccounted for. Moreover, this is a post-facto rationale. Sure, the aftermath of the Iraq war has made it easier to frontally attack Bush. But the loathing long predates it. It started in Florida and has been deepening ever since Bush seized the post-9/11 moment to change the direction of the country and make himself a President of note.
Which is why the Democratic candidates are scrambling desperately to out-Dean Dean. Their constituency is seized with a fever, and will nominate whichever candidate feeds it best. Political fevers are a dangerous thing, however. The Democrats last came down with one in 1972--and lost 49 states.
I disagree. Nixon gave people on both sides of the aisle plenty of concrete reasons to build up an unprecedented level of disgust towards him over time. Bush is simply hated because he exists, and only by the RATS. He beat the Dems' attempt to steal the 2000 election, and for that Crime Against The Democratic Party, he must be crushed. It is not anything like the anger towards Nixon. It is also not "near pathological." It IS pathological.
Let's just hope the drunk took a cab instead of committing another DUI offense.
Almost like the pathological hatred many conservatives had for Bill Clinton ...
he is a CHRISTIAN, one who actually believes what his faith tells him, and this is the absolute worst thing in the world to a liberal. If you saw that HBO movie "DC-9/11," that really captured it. A committed Christian knows there is evil in the world and that it must be confronted.
And one more thing: the very existence of committed Christians in the presence of others is unnerving to no-believers because it exposes their sinful lifestyle and makes them uncomfortable in their sin.
And the Christian doesn't have to say anything or even really DO anything, but his or her existence threatens libs.
To those who hate America and wish to destroy America, only people who can be manipulated, like Willie, are acceptable. Those who draw a line in the sand and will not be moved, are the enemy.
And, President Bush makes a good focus for their frustrations All America haters refuse to address issues logically and factually. Their tactic is to focus of the person who personifies the opposition and demonize him. This is hard to do with Bush because he is what he is.
The frustration also comes from their near victory. Willie was a true America hater, turned and trained by the commies; the ultimate mole. Willie's support was pretty much destroyed by the Gipper and he lost his motivation and opted for booze, broads, power games, and drugs.
Examples can be found almost every week on Leno and Letterman. The jokes where Bush is the target deal with his pronunciation or flight suit; the jokes about Willie (yes, still!) are barbed and deal with his dishonesty, infidelity, or Monica.
All that the neocommunists have is to hate and demonize Bush.
Frustration, of course, also comes from the fact that it certainly looks like Bush will continue to win and the America haters will continue to Frenchify.
They are clearly and viciously waging as much a war as they can today through the media and the subversion of the courts -- Civil War II isn't out of realm within the next 20-25 years IMO.
That gave me a very interesting mental picture.
The hysterical reaction of many conservatives to Bill Clinton probably set their cause back, somewhat. Without the opposition baying at the moon and demanding Bill Clinton's head on a pike, the middle of the country may well have turned against him, based on his numerous scandals, sex being the least of them.
Unfortunately, Bill Clinton was able to use his opposition's rabid nature to his own advantage, successfully playing the wounded party, victimized by the attack dogs of the right.
Plain and simple?
The Dems hate Dubya because he promotes and abides in and respects the authority of the Lord, individual responsibility, and national sovereignty -- rather than secular humanism, One-Worldism, and moral relativism....
My husband feels the same way.
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.