« Atrocities | Main | Registered to Vote? Are You Sure? »

October 13, 2004
The Case Against George W. Bush

Ron Reagan, Jr, presents The Case Against George W. Bush in a piece in Esquire magazine.

It's quite a convincing case, not that anyone should be surprised by that.

Some choice excerpts:

Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.

None of this, needless to say, guarantees Bush a one-term presidency. The far-right wing of the country--nearly one third of us by some estimates--continues to regard all who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid (liberals, rationalists, Europeans, et cetera) as agents of Satan. Bush could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank their vote. Right-wing talking heads continue painting anyone who fails to genuflect deeply enough as a "hater," and therefore a nut job, probably a crypto-Islamist car bomber. But these protestations have taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. It's one thing to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos.

ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WILL DISSEMBLE, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one's long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes.

Mr. Bush's tendency to meander beyond the bounds of truth was evident during the 2000 campaign but was largely ignored by the mainstream media. His untruths simply didn't fit the agreed-upon narrative. While generally acknowledged to be lacking in experience, depth, and other qualifications typically considered useful in a leader of the free world, Bush was portrayed as a decent fellow nonetheless, one whose straightforwardness was a given. None of that "what the meaning of is is" business for him. And, God knows, no furtive, taxpayer-funded fellatio sessions with the interns. Al Gore, on the other hand, was depicted as a dubious self-reinventor, stained like a certain blue dress by Bill Clinton's prurient transgressions. He would spend valuable weeks explaining away statements--"I invented the Internet"--that he never made in the first place. All this left the coast pretty clear for Bush.

Scenario typical of the 2000 campaign: While debating Al Gore, Bush tells two obvious--if not exactly earth-shattering--lies and is not challenged. First, he claims to have supported a patient's bill of rights while governor of Texas. This is untrue. He, in fact, vigorously resisted such a measure, only reluctantly bowing to political reality and allowing it to become law without his signature. Second, he announces that Gore has outspent him during the campaign. The opposite is true: Bush has outspent Gore. These misstatements are briefly acknowledged in major press outlets, which then quickly return to the more germane issues of Gore's pancake makeup and whether a certain feminist author has counseled him to be more of an "alpha male."

Having gotten away with such witless falsities, perhaps Mr. Bush and his team felt somehow above day-to-day truth. In any case, once ensconced in the White House, they picked up where they left off.

The only quibble I have with Reagan's argument is that he lets the press off the hook too easily. People like George W. Bush would never be able to get away with these lies if the media didn't, as he puts it, "quickly return to the more germane issues of Gore's pancake makeup," etc. In order for our leaders to be accountable, someone needs to hold them accountable.

Similarly, the only quibble I have with my own argument above is that I'm letting the American public off the hook too easily. People like "The Media" woudn't be able to get away with talking about pancake makeup if we didn't continue to watch it and even encourage it. In the end, we are the consumers of this garbage and it's our responsibility to demand accountability, both from our politicians and from our media. All the self-righteous rhetoric in the world doesn't mean a thing to these companies as long as their profits keep going up. They only understand money, and it's our money.

The whole thing is well worth reading. I would love to see anyone make as convincing a case -- based on facts, as this one is, and not on whatever it is that Republicans seem to base things on these days -- for George W. Bush as an even passable leader.

He is not. Not even close. He is an awful, awful leader; a failure in the grandest possible way. He was ruined or threatened more of the things that ordinary peope hold dear than it's comfortable to contemplate. It's positively terrifying that this many has supporters.

I'm begging you -- please don't vote for him.

Comments

Previous Comments