It won't surprise you, ogged, that Chait's attempts to distinguish Bush hatred and Clinton hatred do not sway me. (nor does his laughable attribution of Bush's victory to a failure of democratic safeguards)
But the phenomenon is real, of course. So what explains it? I believe the key word in your comment was "social circle" -- the essence of Bush hatred, and the similarity between hsi case and Clintons, is the *cultural* profile of the two men. Bush fits the cultural stereotype that the left has of conservatives -- rich, spoiled, stupid religious fanatics. Likewise, the Clintons united two conservative bete noirs -- the unprincipled 60s libertine (Bill) and the know-it all technocrat who knows what's best for you (Hillary). As it happens, in each case, the stereotypes are basically on target: Bill Clinton is an unprincipled libertine, Bush Jr. is a dull scion of privilege. Here's a guess -- anger correlates with cultural insularity, and the maddest are the denizens of the ideological ghettos, who who have the least meaningful exposure to the other side.
The Chait piece illustrates perfectly what it describes: the silly and by the way undemocratic idea that "Do you like the guy?" even is a political question. I attest that I hate Bush every bit as much as Chait and for roughly the same reasons. It makes me nauseated to watch him, and it makes me embarrassed to know that he represents my country to the world. But my nausea and embarrassment are not political phenomena. They're merely personal and have more to do with the facts that I too knew Bush-like brats in school and happen to think -- I can't help it -- that a Texas accent tends to make a person sound stupid. These are prejudices, the first quite reasonable, the second completely unreasonable. Many of people's prejudices against Bush are reasonable. But that's not to the point. The fact that liberals hate Bush in the ways that they do simply illustrates the MoDo-style silliness that has come to infect contemporary US liberalism.
In my view Bush has been deeply and dangerously wrong about most things and surprisingly right about a few. I'd like to vote against him in 2004 (as I did in 2000), but alas the Democrats are giving me lots of reasons to vote against them too.
I disagree that the likeableness of a President's peronality is silly or irrelevant. The Bush Presidency in particular has shown in bright lights how important an issue this is. Insofar that the office of the President is democratic at all is in how he can work with others, arguing and persuading to arrive at the best position for his policies. In that depiction of the democratic ideal, it is apparant that not only a person's intelligence, but his charisma, is necessary to be an effective leader. A Democratic President should be receptive to ideas and able to communicate with and unite Congress and the citizens of America. Bush. without that type of personality, has resorted to tyrannical strategies in Congress and lies to the american people. So it's the opposite of what you say, a President with a bad character doesn't seem to be able to be a democratic leader. And the ramifications do not stop at home. It is pretty apparant how much Bush's personality has cost the US with regard to its international standard.
Of course, all of this doesn't merely stand on his personality alone, but on his terrible policies. And that's the real issue. Teddy Roosevelt had a similar, despotic approach to government, as did Abraham Lincoln. I do not think that without Bush's bad policies behind everything the "he's an asshole" argument would ever have gained any real volume.
first paragraph, last sentence. Should be "international standing" not "international standard." Sorry, late at night.
Addenum: Our international standing is a vitale part of being a world leader, for pushing American ideals abroad, and in making headway in the War on Terrorism. Sure, these countries also don't like our policies, but, Bush's cowboy attitude I think has a lot to do with that. With a different leader, we could have persued the same policies, with much less international outrage.
Ted H. writes, "I'd like to vote against him in 2004 (as I did in 2000), but alas the Democrats are giving me lots of reasons to vote against them too." Just as long as imperfect Democrat doesn't equal a vote for Bush. Some people out there are going to see the status quo as something that should stay unless the perfect alternative is presented. I want to see some righty write, "I'd like to vote against the Democrats in 2004, but Bush is giving me plenty of reason to vote against him too."
Michael: The considerations you cite (e.g. a penchant for despotism) aren't what the Chait article was about. Of course despotism and the like would be reasons to oppose Bush. Chait was talking about things like the way Bush holds his arms while walking, his spoiled-brat background, and his inability to speak in full sentences.
Now you could argue that these qualities matter because the prejudices against them among the people with whom Bush has to work, both domestically and abroad, are so strong that no one who has the qualities could be an effective leader. But that wasn't Chait's argument either. His argument was that the qualities are politically relevant just as such -- purely by virtue of the fact that people like him (and me and you) find them so incredibly irritating.
That's a bad argument: a bad argument that illustrates a strand of bad politics on the left. I concede that there are arguments that he might have made that would have been better. These arguments (e.g. that Bush's 'cowboy rhetoric' has played a substantive role in alienating our erstwhile allies) would be more relevant to the political issue, but they're also harder to make convincing (e.g. aren't those allies simply using the rhetoric as an excuse for opposing policies that they'd have opposed in any case?).
FL: I guess I thought Chait's point was to justify anger at and hatred of the man GWB, not anger at and hatred of his policies. True, I cited some of the more trivial of Chait's listed rationales for anger and hatred. But then I went on to say that many of the rationales for hatred and anger are "reasonable" -- and here I meant to allude to the more complex instances you cite. I've been all along conceding that it's reasonable to hate GWB for these reasons -- i.e. that the motives for hatred are reasonable. What I don't concede is the virtue or viability of a politics that frames issues in this personal way. I too am worried about the social injustice of Bush's policies. But while it does personally irritate me that Bush's career rests on nepotism, I don't think citing this nepotism is politically effective or even serious.
I can put the point this way. In (b), you say that what bugs liberals about Bush's career is its status as "evidence" of social injustice. I think that claim is disingenuous. Don't we all know lots of people whose careers have involved nepotism and other socially unjust machinations? Yet do we froth over these other cases? But these cases constitute just as much evidence of social injustice as Bush's case.
To capture the animus, your (b) needs to read: "his success exemplifies deep injustice." It's what Bush exemplifies or stands for that's so irritating (to me too), not his status as evidence. But that's to say that the irritation is personal rather than relevantly political.
There's plenty of evidence of social injustice to be found in the current and projected consequences of Bush's policies. It simply changes the subject from politics to gossip to cite Bush himself as such "evidence."
Even if the central question of the article was "do you like the guy," I think it would have been legitimate.
You dismiss, Ted, as "merely personal," your reaction to George Bush. But why discount so readily our finely honed powers of observation? It's true that political reasoning ought to be available to rational critique, but the fact that it's difficult to articulate our impressions and their relationship to politics doesn't mean it's impossible or illegitimate.
Chait does a wonderful job of detailing what irks him about Bush.
shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo
That's well-seen and well-said. And, given that Presidents so often make foreign policy on an ad-hoc basis, reacting to events and trusting their instincts, their temperament and character is relevant information. Bush's commitment to feigned machismo is a pretty good explanation for his tone when dealing with Kyoto, the UN, and the ICC. In fact, his feigned machismo has turned out, in retrospect, to have been a much better predictor of his policies and actions than his platform and rhetoric.
Given the extent to which we do in fact judge politicians on the basis of our inchoate reactions to them, it seems wise to recognize the poverty of our public language for discussing those reactions and to set about creating a more robust vocabulary. Ruling such talk out of bounds (or, at least, not quite serious, not quite political) seems to me exactly wrong.
Good! Yes, "exemplifies" is what I need; it's not just that Bush's success shows certain claims to be true, it's that Bush's success is an instance of the problem. (It also provides more evidence for the obvious claim that the problems don't stop at the penultimate level.)
And I do a lot of frothing.
What gets me about Bush, I think, is that what's wrong with the policies is illustrated (or exemplified) by the person promoting the policies: he promotes and has been promoted by the very same unfairness. Weak pun, but still. Is this politically relevant? Here I lose my grasp on the question because I'm not sure what sort of political relevance is at issue. Surely this visceral reaction is reflected in voting behavior (just as Gore lost votes for being so personally weird), and, for all we know, it's an effective campaign trick. But that's not what you mean.
I wonder if some parts of his character matter because of the role these flaws play in bad policy: it's not just that he makes bad decisions, but that he makes them in a particular way, for particular reasons. That is, none of his personal traits inspires confidence that he's well-meaning but mistaken.
I have now forgotten what exactly we might disagree about.
Ogged, I'm not arguing against making and acting on character assessments. I completely agree with you that character is often the best predictor and sometimes the only predictor we have. Character assessment can certainly be politically serious.
But Chait's article wasn't primarily about character assessment; it was about explaining liberals' hatred of Bush. You could put it this way: Chait's assessments of Bush's character were mostly personal, not political. He was assessing aspects of character that are relevant to deciding whether to befriend someone, or to invite them to a party, not whether to vote for him.
Of course, it's a matter of emphasis, and some of what Chait said is relevant to a political assessment of Bush's character. But most of what he said is not.
There's another danger here as well. When one conflates the distinction I've drawn, one will tend to describe political decisions in more personal terms that obscure their political nature. I think you're doing that when you speak of Bush's "feigned machismo." I don't think that a politically serious account of Bush's decision making should use "feigned machismo" as an explanatory category. Sure, it's a vivid description, and it captures beautifully something about the decision making that you don't like. But it's not politically serious.
Here's why it isn't politically serious. Imagine you're somehow in the loop and in position to criticize GWB to his face. Now contrast (a) "Mr Bush, the problem is that you're feigning machismo" with (b) "Mr Bush, the problem is that you're stubbornly overlooking the consideration that[such and such]." (a) is just going to get you slapped of fired, whereas (b) stands a chance of getting through to him. The point, however, isn't whether he'd listen. The point is that (a) changes the subject, transforming you into his psychotherapist or dating counsellor or someone concerned with him, whereas (b) ascribes to him a character trait in a way that is relevant to the political issue at hand, which is the decision and its subject matter, not him.
This is too much for one comment. I shouldn't have given up the blog...
Whether or not they are politically serious, gut reactions to perceived character play a huge part in actual real-life elections, and lately they always seem to work against Democrats.
My late mother, an immigrant who never made more than minimum wage in her 55+ years of employment, could not bring herself to vote for Clinton because he disgusted her so. Gore repelled her too, and she voted for Bush Jr., whose "feigned machismo" seemed real and laudable to her. Many, many working class people--and I know this of my own knowledge--find Bush Jr's manner reassuring. To some it's simplemindedness; to others, simple manliness.
I myself go into a rage at the sound of his voice, but I think instinctive Bush-loathers are, very regrettably, a minority. If visceral likes and dislikes decide the next election, I think Bush will win.
"I'd like to vote against him in 2004 (as I did in 2000), but alas the Democrats are giving me lots of reasons to vote against them too." Just as long as imperfect Democrat doesn't equal a vote for Bush. Some people out there are going to see the status quo as something that should stay unless the perfect alternative is presented.
That's just foolishness. The Dem field is a frickin' disaster. The swing voters (like me) are ready to bounce Bush, but the Dems are doing their best to blow it. Don't blame that on us.
-Magik
PS, We're still crossing our fingers on Clark -- he hasn't actually articulated a policy vision as of yet.
(b) his political career contradicts some cherished myths, namely, equality of opportunity, the rewards of industry and virtue, and so on-- his success is evidence of deep injustice. Finally, (c) he shamelessly exploits opportunities for demogogic use of, say, 9-11, the armed forces (despite his youthful avoidance), and so on.
Has anyone else noticed that these criticisms apply equally to cherished Dem idol, JFK? Daddy bought his election; he was of low character and had accomplished nothing. He exploited a lie about the missile gap to defeat Nixon. He exploited fears of communism to drive his own popularity, even at the risk of nuclear war in Cuba, and at the cost of deepening US involvement in Viet Nam.
But JFK's the Dem hero. What's up with that?
And the a) argument is foolish -- that Bush was barely elected and didn't have a popular majority so he should not behave as the actual president. That's just unserious: it's whining, or advice for morons. If you win the presidency, you behave like the president and pursue your policy agenda. Period.
My point wasn't that Bush has less legal authority than someone elected in a landslide; nor was it that "he should not behave as the actual president," whatever that means (a moderately-governing president is less presidential?).
There are two related sources of left anger here. First, Bush promised a change of tone; he'd unite, not divide; he'd pursue bipartisanship with his friends across the aisle. This he has not done. People are angry, and perhaps rightly so. Second, he adds fuel to the fire by doing this in spite of the specifics of the election. We can imagine a statesman feeling a (non-legal) obligation to, say, respect the complexities of the will of the people by moderating his agenda, though, of course, he has the authority to choose whatever political path he likes. Bush hasn't done this, either. Should we have expected him to think this plausible thought? That would have been naive. But he doesn't get off the anger hook by being predictably lousy.
Bill Clinton was elected to his first term with less than 50% of the vote (possibly thanks to Ross Perot). Do you object to his pursuit of national health care and gays in the military in his first term on the grounds that he did not win by a landslide?
That's your standard as I read it. It seems silly -- I think what matters is if you're elected or not; if yes, then you act as president, never as half a president.
I agree that he promised bipartisanship but has behaved in a partisan manner. That is indeed weasel-y although it's obviously something done by a lot of presidents. Even worse, they run to the party extreme in the primary, to the center in the general, and then somewhere else during their term in office. But then we already knew 90% of politicians were weasels.
one last word on the subject: Clinton would have been smarter to reflect humbly on the voting patterns, surely-- and the two decisions you mention are good evidence for this. Both were politically disastrous, and a decade later we still don't have good health care or real protection for gays in the military. This pragmatic point is different from the one I was making, granted, but I think it's part of the argument.
It won't surprise you, ogged, that Chait's attempts to distinguish Bush hatred and Clinton hatred do not sway me. (nor does his laughable attribution of Bush's victory to a failure of democratic safeguards)
But the phenomenon is real, of course. So what explains it? I believe the key word in your comment was "social circle" -- the essence of Bush hatred, and the similarity between hsi case and Clintons, is the *cultural* profile of the two men. Bush fits the cultural stereotype that the left has of conservatives -- rich, spoiled, stupid religious fanatics. Likewise, the Clintons united two conservative bete noirs -- the unprincipled 60s libertine (Bill) and the know-it all technocrat who knows what's best for you (Hillary). As it happens, in each case, the stereotypes are basically on target: Bill Clinton is an unprincipled libertine, Bush Jr. is a dull scion of privilege. Here's a guess -- anger correlates with cultural insularity, and the maddest are the denizens of the ideological ghettos, who who have the least meaningful exposure to the other side.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 5:22 PM
The Chait piece illustrates perfectly what it describes: the silly and by the way undemocratic idea that "Do you like the guy?" even is a political question. I attest that I hate Bush every bit as much as Chait and for roughly the same reasons. It makes me nauseated to watch him, and it makes me embarrassed to know that he represents my country to the world. But my nausea and embarrassment are not political phenomena. They're merely personal and have more to do with the facts that I too knew Bush-like brats in school and happen to think -- I can't help it -- that a Texas accent tends to make a person sound stupid. These are prejudices, the first quite reasonable, the second completely unreasonable. Many of people's prejudices against Bush are reasonable. But that's not to the point. The fact that liberals hate Bush in the ways that they do simply illustrates the MoDo-style silliness that has come to infect contemporary US liberalism.
In my view Bush has been deeply and dangerously wrong about most things and surprisingly right about a few. I'd like to vote against him in 2004 (as I did in 2000), but alas the Democrats are giving me lots of reasons to vote against them too.
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 10:12 PM
I disagree that the likeableness of a President's peronality is silly or irrelevant. The Bush Presidency in particular has shown in bright lights how important an issue this is. Insofar that the office of the President is democratic at all is in how he can work with others, arguing and persuading to arrive at the best position for his policies. In that depiction of the democratic ideal, it is apparant that not only a person's intelligence, but his charisma, is necessary to be an effective leader. A Democratic President should be receptive to ideas and able to communicate with and unite Congress and the citizens of America. Bush. without that type of personality, has resorted to tyrannical strategies in Congress and lies to the american people. So it's the opposite of what you say, a President with a bad character doesn't seem to be able to be a democratic leader. And the ramifications do not stop at home. It is pretty apparant how much Bush's personality has cost the US with regard to its international standard.
Of course, all of this doesn't merely stand on his personality alone, but on his terrible policies. And that's the real issue. Teddy Roosevelt had a similar, despotic approach to government, as did Abraham Lincoln. I do not think that without Bush's bad policies behind everything the "he's an asshole" argument would ever have gained any real volume.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 12:29 AM
first paragraph, last sentence. Should be "international standing" not "international standard." Sorry, late at night.
Addenum: Our international standing is a vitale part of being a world leader, for pushing American ideals abroad, and in making headway in the War on Terrorism. Sure, these countries also don't like our policies, but, Bush's cowboy attitude I think has a lot to do with that. With a different leader, we could have persued the same policies, with much less international outrage.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 12:33 AM
Ted H. writes, "I'd like to vote against him in 2004 (as I did in 2000), but alas the Democrats are giving me lots of reasons to vote against them too." Just as long as imperfect Democrat doesn't equal a vote for Bush. Some people out there are going to see the status quo as something that should stay unless the perfect alternative is presented. I want to see some righty write, "I'd like to vote against the Democrats in 2004, but Bush is giving me plenty of reason to vote against him too."
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 7:55 AM
Michael: The considerations you cite (e.g. a penchant for despotism) aren't what the Chait article was about. Of course despotism and the like would be reasons to oppose Bush. Chait was talking about things like the way Bush holds his arms while walking, his spoiled-brat background, and his inability to speak in full sentences.
Now you could argue that these qualities matter because the prejudices against them among the people with whom Bush has to work, both domestically and abroad, are so strong that no one who has the qualities could be an effective leader. But that wasn't Chait's argument either. His argument was that the qualities are politically relevant just as such -- purely by virtue of the fact that people like him (and me and you) find them so incredibly irritating.
That's a bad argument: a bad argument that illustrates a strand of bad politics on the left. I concede that there are arguments that he might have made that would have been better. These arguments (e.g. that Bush's 'cowboy rhetoric' has played a substantive role in alienating our erstwhile allies) would be more relevant to the political issue, but they're also harder to make convincing (e.g. aren't those allies simply using the rhetoric as an excuse for opposing policies that they'd have opposed in any case?).
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 9:48 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 10:38 AM
FL: I guess I thought Chait's point was to justify anger at and hatred of the man GWB, not anger at and hatred of his policies. True, I cited some of the more trivial of Chait's listed rationales for anger and hatred. But then I went on to say that many of the rationales for hatred and anger are "reasonable" -- and here I meant to allude to the more complex instances you cite. I've been all along conceding that it's reasonable to hate GWB for these reasons -- i.e. that the motives for hatred are reasonable. What I don't concede is the virtue or viability of a politics that frames issues in this personal way. I too am worried about the social injustice of Bush's policies. But while it does personally irritate me that Bush's career rests on nepotism, I don't think citing this nepotism is politically effective or even serious.
I can put the point this way. In (b), you say that what bugs liberals about Bush's career is its status as "evidence" of social injustice. I think that claim is disingenuous. Don't we all know lots of people whose careers have involved nepotism and other socially unjust machinations? Yet do we froth over these other cases? But these cases constitute just as much evidence of social injustice as Bush's case.
To capture the animus, your (b) needs to read: "his success exemplifies deep injustice." It's what Bush exemplifies or stands for that's so irritating (to me too), not his status as evidence. But that's to say that the irritation is personal rather than relevantly political.
There's plenty of evidence of social injustice to be found in the current and projected consequences of Bush's policies. It simply changes the subject from politics to gossip to cite Bush himself as such "evidence."
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 11:29 AM
Even if the central question of the article was "do you like the guy," I think it would have been legitimate.
You dismiss, Ted, as "merely personal," your reaction to George Bush. But why discount so readily our finely honed powers of observation? It's true that political reasoning ought to be available to rational critique, but the fact that it's difficult to articulate our impressions and their relationship to politics doesn't mean it's impossible or illegitimate.
Chait does a wonderful job of detailing what irks him about Bush.
That's well-seen and well-said. And, given that Presidents so often make foreign policy on an ad-hoc basis, reacting to events and trusting their instincts, their temperament and character is relevant information. Bush's commitment to feigned machismo is a pretty good explanation for his tone when dealing with Kyoto, the UN, and the ICC. In fact, his feigned machismo has turned out, in retrospect, to have been a much better predictor of his policies and actions than his platform and rhetoric.
Given the extent to which we do in fact judge politicians on the basis of our inchoate reactions to them, it seems wise to recognize the poverty of our public language for discussing those reactions and to set about creating a more robust vocabulary. Ruling such talk out of bounds (or, at least, not quite serious, not quite political) seems to me exactly wrong.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 12:03 PM
Good! Yes, "exemplifies" is what I need; it's not just that Bush's success shows certain claims to be true, it's that Bush's success is an instance of the problem. (It also provides more evidence for the obvious claim that the problems don't stop at the penultimate level.)
And I do a lot of frothing.
What gets me about Bush, I think, is that what's wrong with the policies is illustrated (or exemplified) by the person promoting the policies: he promotes and has been promoted by the very same unfairness. Weak pun, but still. Is this politically relevant? Here I lose my grasp on the question because I'm not sure what sort of political relevance is at issue. Surely this visceral reaction is reflected in voting behavior (just as Gore lost votes for being so personally weird), and, for all we know, it's an effective campaign trick. But that's not what you mean.
I wonder if some parts of his character matter because of the role these flaws play in bad policy: it's not just that he makes bad decisions, but that he makes them in a particular way, for particular reasons. That is, none of his personal traits inspires confidence that he's well-meaning but mistaken.
I have now forgotten what exactly we might disagree about.
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 12:13 PM
Ogged, I'm not arguing against making and acting on character assessments. I completely agree with you that character is often the best predictor and sometimes the only predictor we have. Character assessment can certainly be politically serious.
But Chait's article wasn't primarily about character assessment; it was about explaining liberals' hatred of Bush. You could put it this way: Chait's assessments of Bush's character were mostly personal, not political. He was assessing aspects of character that are relevant to deciding whether to befriend someone, or to invite them to a party, not whether to vote for him.
Of course, it's a matter of emphasis, and some of what Chait said is relevant to a political assessment of Bush's character. But most of what he said is not.
There's another danger here as well. When one conflates the distinction I've drawn, one will tend to describe political decisions in more personal terms that obscure their political nature. I think you're doing that when you speak of Bush's "feigned machismo." I don't think that a politically serious account of Bush's decision making should use "feigned machismo" as an explanatory category. Sure, it's a vivid description, and it captures beautifully something about the decision making that you don't like. But it's not politically serious.
Here's why it isn't politically serious. Imagine you're somehow in the loop and in position to criticize GWB to his face. Now contrast (a) "Mr Bush, the problem is that you're feigning machismo" with (b) "Mr Bush, the problem is that you're stubbornly overlooking the consideration that[such and such]." (a) is just going to get you slapped of fired, whereas (b) stands a chance of getting through to him. The point, however, isn't whether he'd listen. The point is that (a) changes the subject, transforming you into his psychotherapist or dating counsellor or someone concerned with him, whereas (b) ascribes to him a character trait in a way that is relevant to the political issue at hand, which is the decision and its subject matter, not him.
This is too much for one comment. I shouldn't have given up the blog...
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 5:49 PM
Whether or not they are politically serious, gut reactions to perceived character play a huge part in actual real-life elections, and lately they always seem to work against Democrats.
My late mother, an immigrant who never made more than minimum wage in her 55+ years of employment, could not bring herself to vote for Clinton because he disgusted her so. Gore repelled her too, and she voted for Bush Jr., whose "feigned machismo" seemed real and laudable to her. Many, many working class people--and I know this of my own knowledge--find Bush Jr's manner reassuring. To some it's simplemindedness; to others, simple manliness.
I myself go into a rage at the sound of his voice, but I think instinctive Bush-loathers are, very regrettably, a minority. If visceral likes and dislikes decide the next election, I think Bush will win.
Posted by Linda | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 10:55 PM
"I'd like to vote against him in 2004 (as I did in 2000), but alas the Democrats are giving me lots of reasons to vote against them too." Just as long as imperfect Democrat doesn't equal a vote for Bush. Some people out there are going to see the status quo as something that should stay unless the perfect alternative is presented.
That's just foolishness. The Dem field is a frickin' disaster. The swing voters (like me) are ready to bounce Bush, but the Dems are doing their best to blow it. Don't blame that on us.
-Magik
PS, We're still crossing our fingers on Clark -- he hasn't actually articulated a policy vision as of yet.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 09-20-03 2:12 AM
(b) his political career contradicts some cherished myths, namely, equality of opportunity, the rewards of industry and virtue, and so on-- his success is evidence of deep injustice. Finally, (c) he shamelessly exploits opportunities for demogogic use of, say, 9-11, the armed forces (despite his youthful avoidance), and so on.
Has anyone else noticed that these criticisms apply equally to cherished Dem idol, JFK? Daddy bought his election; he was of low character and had accomplished nothing. He exploited a lie about the missile gap to defeat Nixon. He exploited fears of communism to drive his own popularity, even at the risk of nuclear war in Cuba, and at the cost of deepening US involvement in Viet Nam.
But JFK's the Dem hero. What's up with that?
And the a) argument is foolish -- that Bush was barely elected and didn't have a popular majority so he should not behave as the actual president. That's just unserious: it's whining, or advice for morons. If you win the presidency, you behave like the president and pursue your policy agenda. Period.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-20-03 2:21 AM
My point wasn't that Bush has less legal authority than someone elected in a landslide; nor was it that "he should not behave as the actual president," whatever that means (a moderately-governing president is less presidential?).
There are two related sources of left anger here. First, Bush promised a change of tone; he'd unite, not divide; he'd pursue bipartisanship with his friends across the aisle. This he has not done. People are angry, and perhaps rightly so. Second, he adds fuel to the fire by doing this in spite of the specifics of the election. We can imagine a statesman feeling a (non-legal) obligation to, say, respect the complexities of the will of the people by moderating his agenda, though, of course, he has the authority to choose whatever political path he likes. Bush hasn't done this, either. Should we have expected him to think this plausible thought? That would have been naive. But he doesn't get off the anger hook by being predictably lousy.
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 09-20-03 2:08 PM
Well JFK isn't my idol, to put it mildly.
Posted by Ophelia Benson | Link to this comment | 09-20-03 7:07 PM
Fontana,
Bill Clinton was elected to his first term with less than 50% of the vote (possibly thanks to Ross Perot). Do you object to his pursuit of national health care and gays in the military in his first term on the grounds that he did not win by a landslide?
That's your standard as I read it. It seems silly -- I think what matters is if you're elected or not; if yes, then you act as president, never as half a president.
I agree that he promised bipartisanship but has behaved in a partisan manner. That is indeed weasel-y although it's obviously something done by a lot of presidents. Even worse, they run to the party extreme in the primary, to the center in the general, and then somewhere else during their term in office. But then we already knew 90% of politicians were weasels.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-20-03 7:52 PM
one last word on the subject: Clinton would have been smarter to reflect humbly on the voting patterns, surely-- and the two decisions you mention are good evidence for this. Both were politically disastrous, and a decade later we still don't have good health care or real protection for gays in the military. This pragmatic point is different from the one I was making, granted, but I think it's part of the argument.
Posted by f-labs | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 7:54 AM