Bush-Haters, You're Running Out of Esteem (From a Canadian newspaper, of all places)

The Globe and Mail ^ | January 31, 2004 | Rex Murphy

[quidnunc]

There's a paradox at the centre of the terrific animus towards George W. Bush. For his detractors, who are legion and intense, the man is a cipher, a mere stand-in, for the real powers in the White House. A puppet of the functioning minds and stronger personalities of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the outer ring of advisers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

He is simultaneously thought of as bumbling preppie, an arrested-development delinquent, the prototypical frat-boy party animal, the kind of middle-aged man who thinks John Belushi's Animal House is the only real film made in the last 30 years, and whose idea of reading is a Tom Clancy novel, or, on less challenging days, the latest issue of Guns & Ammo magazine.

The indictment is scathing and thorough. George W. is an automaton of Pooh-sized mentality ("a bear of very little brain") with the attention span of a slow-witted gnat, the introspective capacity of a starlet, and the mental agility of a stale Fig Newton.

His enemies scarcely credit him with doing his own breathing, and would comment that if he is breathing on his own, he is surely not conscious of his doing so. He lucked into the presidency on the strength of his father's name, a private fortune that was made for him by his friends, and the sheer, eerie incompetence of the Al Gore campaign. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, that George W. Bush, of his own merits, or as a consequence of his own actions, contributed to the effort which landed him in the White House, and placed in his late-adolescent hands the exercise of the greatest power that this Earth has ever known.

-snip-

[quidnunc]

Quote:

If he is, as a person, so innocuous, so unfinished and essentially trivial — what drives the anger and contempt of so many people? Part of an answer might be that for those outside America, for whom anti-Americanism is professional or ideological, the projection of the person inhabiting the White House as little less than a fool and a stooge adds an extra fillip of insult and contempt to their career animosity.

For those within America who are fervidly anti-Bush, the same characterization offers them a proportionately larger and higher image of themselves. Michael Moore, ludicrous, pompous and banal all at once, preens himself, stands so much taller, morally and intellectually, when set against the dim caricature occupying the White House. The people who hate George Bush have a great deal of their own self-esteem invested in creating the idea of the upstart vacuous dummy in the Oval Office.

They don't have an inferiority complex, they are inferior!

[Guillermo]

Around here, if one is opposed to the Bush's domestic policy, then they're a "Bush Hater" as well.

[Eala]

Around here, if one is opposed to the Bush's domestic policy, then they're a "Bush Hater" as well.

[marron]

Its like when the dufus next door beats you at chess, and you're sure it was dumb luck. Then he does it again, and again he's not smart enough to have done it, and yet he did. So you're thinking maybe this is one of those Rain Man things where the dumb guy memorizes the phone book but can't read. Or something. Or maybe one of those Forrest Gump things where he's always in the right place at the right time, who knows how. Then he beats you again.

It never occurs to you that the dufus next door is actually smarter than you.

[EggsAckley]

He is simultaneously thought of as bumbling preppie, an arrested-development delinquent, the prototypical frat-boy party animal, the kind of middle-aged man who thinks John Belushi's Animal House is the only real film made in the last 30 years, and whose idea of reading is a Tom Clancy novel, or, on less challenging days, the latest issue of Guns & Ammo magazine.

Funny, I don't see him like that at all. Quite the opposite. Just who is it that they are talking about, themselves, perhaps?

[meenie]

When the dufus next door makes mistake after mistake and then tries to explain that he was thinking of checkers when he was making his move, it makes you wonder if he is playing with all his pieces. Any relationship betwwen WMD's and no WMD's, 400 billion for Senior drugs and 580 billion after submitting a budget is purely coincidental. Sorry about that, a dufus is a dufus.

[marron]

I agree with you on probably several of Bush's domestic policies. The senior drug program drives me nuts, as does his education bill, as does his relative inaction on the borders.

I think that the only people actually debating the real Bush are here on the conservative side of the line. The left side is so busy hating him that they can hardly be bothered to take a clear-eyed view of his actual policies.

Its here, among conservatives, that you have actual debate grounded in reality, where we actually consider whether or not something will work as a part of the terms of the debate.

Politically I understand what he has been trying to do with some of his domestic proposals, he is stealing issues from the Democrats. But that also means he is enacting the Democratic platform just to keep them from doing it. Drives me nuts.

But I may disagree with you on the WMD issue. I favored the war quite independently of the WMD issue, and people who opposed the war did so again whether or not there were WMD buried in the sand. I had come to the conclusion long ago that Saddam had to go so I would have been sorely vexed had we stood down and let the UN continue to launder Saddam's money for another decade.

[quidnunc]

As I see it, there are four main species of Bush-haters:

(1) Anti-American foreigners,

(2) anti-American Americans of the Chomskyite variety,

(3) yellow-dog Democrats and

(4) far-right wingnuts who have stowed themselves away on the conservative movement in order to snatch some semblance of legitimacy which they couldn't get on their own (paleocons and the like).

[Guillermo]

I would agree with you, but let's make one thing clear:

Just because one opposed $500 billion deficits, trillion dollar new entitlements, limits on free speech and amnesty for criminal aliens, doesn't mean they "hate Bush."

[Fawnn]

(4) far-right wingnuts

And they've sure been out in force lately. ;)

[FSPress]

Squidward - Apparently you like the spin of the sturdy canadian news media, eh.

[meenie]

It is hard to hate Bush. In your list you could have included sympathetic critics that feel sorry for his inability to represent himself. The neocons in the defense department, Karl Rove in the political department push him out to take the abuse for their ideas and stand in the background cheering him on. If his tenacity and determination were funneled in the right direction, he could be a great president.

[quidnunc]

FSPress wrote: Squidward - Apparently you like the spin of the sturdy canadian news media, eh.

I have to admit, it really surprised me — maybe even shocked me — to find an article like this in The Grope and Flail.

[quidnunc]

Guillermo wrote: I would agree with you, but let's make one thing clear: Just because one opposed $500 billion deficits, trillion dollar new entitlements, limits on free speech and amnesty for criminal aliens, doesn't mean they "hate Bush."

(1) The deficit as a percentage of GDP is not excessively high, and

(2) since the people ultimately get what they want, a Medicare prescription-drug benefit was inevitable.

No politician can do anything unless he or she gets elected and frankly, doctrinaire conservatism will not get anyone elected on the national level.

[expat_panama]

"Just because one opposed $500 billion deficits..."

We agree that GW is not as good as he could be, but that’s not the choice in a two party system.

Do we want GW or Kerry? Let's start with spending. GW is simply not as bad as you say. In the first place, there was one year with a ½ trillion deficit, but your use of the plural is not true. Are GW’s budgets better for Americans than Clinton’s were or Kerry’s will be? Right now taxes are down, that’s good. So is both the debt and the deficit as a percent of gdp. With a two party system we don’t have third choices

[Tamzee]

Amen to your number 8...

:-)

[gatorbait]

a dufus is a dufus

Bravo for for admitting your true self. Thousands cheer for your admission.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

Bush-Haters, You're Running Out Of Esteem - Rex Murphy

There's a paradox at the centre of the terrific animus towards George W. Bush. For his detractors, who are legion and intense, the man is a cipher, a mere stand-in, for the real powers in the White House. A puppet of the functioning minds and stronger personalities of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the outer ring of advisers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

He is simultaneously thought of as bumbling preppie, an arrested-development delinquent, the prototypical frat-boy party animal, the kind of middle-aged man who thinks John Belushi's Animal House is the only real film made in the last 30 years, and whose idea of reading is a Tom Clancy novel, or, on less challenging days, the latest issue of Guns & Ammo magazine.

The indictment is scathing and thorough. George W. is an automaton of Pooh-sized mentality ("a bear of very little brain") with the attention span of a slow-witted gnat, the introspective capacity of a starlet, and the mental agility of a stale Fig Newton.

His enemies scarcely credit him with doing his own breathing, and would comment that if he is breathing on his own, he is surely not conscious of his doing so. He lucked into the presidency on the strength of his father's name, a private fortune that was made for him by his friends, and the sheer, eerie incompetence of the Al Gore campaign. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, that George W. Bush, of his own merits, or as a consequence of his own actions, contributed to the effort which landed him in the White House, and placed in his late-adolescent hands the exercise of the greatest power that this Earth has ever known.

This is the short and polite version -- but such is the character of George W. Bush in the minds of millions and millions of people who actively detest him, some of these millions his fellow-citizens.

Mr. Bush, in the account of his despisers, is a nullity, a nothing, a creature so limited in the resources of his person, his competence, his presence, that he is almost a non-being. Why, how does such a nothing stimulate so commanding an intensity and range of visceral loathing? The distaste for Mr. Bush is not a casual dismissal; it is passionate.

He inspires a sharpness of revulsion that people usually reserve for more personal antipathies: the bitterness of hostility following the reversal or despoilation of a cherished intimacy. If this Texan is such a perfect nobody, why does anyone care?

It is not because he is President, though that is usually the rationalization put forward. That because he is President, and therefore has such power to do so many evil, stupid things, it is not only right to detest him: It is an obligation.

No. This line of reasoning is a kind of after-scaffolding for an emotion that has little to do with reason at all. Mr. Bush is loathed, first in his own right -- as a pickup-driving, nicknaming, inarticulate and haughty George Dubya. That he should be President just adds rocket boosters to the initial hate.

If he is, as a person, so innocuous, so unfinished and essentially trivial -- what drives the anger and contempt of so many people? Part of an answer might be that for those outside America, for whom anti-Americanism is professional or ideological, the projection of the person inhabiting the White House as little less than a fool and a stooge adds an extra fillip of insult and contempt to their career animosity.

For those within America who are fervidly anti-Bush, the same characterization offers them a proportionately larger and higher image of themselves. Michael Moore, ludicrous, pompous and banal all at once, preens himself, stands so much taller, morally and intellectually, when set against the dim caricature occupying the White House. The people who hate George Bush have a great deal of their own self-esteem invested in creating the idea of the upstart vacuous dummy in the Oval Office.

On the account of his enemies, George Bush does not have the personal force, the sustenance of character, to generate the field of contempt and enmity with which he is surrounded.

By contrast, Bill Clinton, quicksilver Bill, the man of a thousand reflexes, intellectual, at home in think tanks or on a Hollywood stage -- Bill Clinton's personality was as large and volatile as some weather systems.

But it's Mr. Bush the nullity who charges millions with the most profound and negative emotions. The response is all out of proportion to its stimulus. It is irrational. The Bush paradox is the central fact in world politics today. It has one equally curious rider. The world's real villain, Osama bin Laden, very largely gets, by contrast, an emotional bye.

_________________________________

Any reason why this GREAT article isn't posted in full? Here it is....

FReegards,

- ConservativeStLouisGuy