I Don't Think I HATE Him, But I Certainly Don't Love Him J ust finished reading Time's very interesting cover story on President Bush: The Love HIm, Hate Him President. It discusses why Bush is the divisive President of recent times. The authors says that partly its the man. Bush is confident, and for people looking for certainty in an uncertain world, this is comforting. However, for people you describe him as "smirky" and "cocksure," this certainty, especially when he doesn't seem to know know what he's talking about, is maddening. And partly, it's his policies: on Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, breaks to big businessm, etc.
It's also party the modern political system, where congressional districts are so solidly for one party or the other that their reps don't have to do any compromising. It's also a product of our divise times. The proliferation of media, allows people to never hear opinions that differ from their own (unless these opinons are being cut down). Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, and the rest preach "My side, right or right, your side are all traitors." And so on.
Anyway, here are a few favorite bits: George Bush is the son of a President who couldn't convince the country that he stood for anything. He succeeded a President whose survival depended on the public's capacity to divorce what it thought of his personal values from what it thought of his public ones. Bush has done the opposite of both. He has wrapped his presidency in who he is and what he believes. So it's no surprise that the theme of Bush's first presidential ad of the campaign is essentially: I, George Bush, am the war against terrorism. "Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists," the ad suggests darkly. After him, the deluge. ---- The President claims not to follow the polls or even read the newspapers. On issues from tax cuts to Iraq, he refuses to flinch when the numbers and sometimes the facts are against him. When he changes course—creating a Department of Homeland Security after he dismissed the idea or speeding up his timetable for giving Iraq its sovereignty—he is loath to concede there has been any correction at all. And if he cannot be wrong, it follows that those who disagree with him cannot be right. For him, governing is a zero-sum game because it's not about compromise, it's about truth. "In an age of relativism—to my glee, but to others, it's jarring—he talks about enemies and good guys and bad guys. He paints stark visions of the choices he faces," says Christian activist Gary Bauer, who ran against Bush for the 2000 Republican nomination.
---- Yes, Bush's malaprops and mangled syntax have given the late-night comedians as much material as Bill Clinton's sex life once did. But what's most revealing—and what drives people into one corner or the other—is the words he doesn't stumble over. Dead or alive. Bring 'em on. And then there's the phrase that comes up so often in his public pronouncements, the one that some hear as a measure of confidence and others as one of smug disdain: "I expect." He expects the Congress to act, he expects the U.N. to show some backbone, he expects Arab nations to be his partners in making peace in the Middle East.
In scary and uncertain times, this kind of forcefulness is what some people want more than anything else. In Hialeah, Fla., a largely Hispanic city next to Miami, teacher Rose Ramirez, 57, declares, "It's about time we have a President that has the balls to do the right thing. People forget about 9/11." Bush's supporters increasingly worry about what they see happening in Iraq, but they stand behind him because he himself has not wavered. It's as though they support his certitude more than his policies, his self-assurance more than his programs. "I like that he's decisive, and I think that he has the country's best interests at heart," said one respondent to the TIME/CNN poll. "I may not agree with what he chooses to do; it's kind of like having a boss who has the best interests of the company in mind, but won't give you a raise." ---- Whereas Bush prided himself on building bipartisan coalitions in Texas, he has done little to stop G.O.P. congressional leaders in Washington from all but shutting out Democrats from the negotiating process—depriving them of any say, or credit, for such crucial legislation as a Medicare prescription-drug benefit and an energy-policy overhaul.
This piece reminds us that for years pollsters said that America was 40% Republican, 40% Democrat and 20% independent. Now, they say, it's a 45-45-10 nation -- and everybody wants that increasingly small 10%. In a race as close as the one in 2000, where five states were decided by less than 1% of the vote, even tiny numbers of swing voters can be an electoral tipping point. Both sides hope that if they can expand their own ranks, they will build a cushion against the shifting and unpredictable allegiances of that small handful of late deciders. But characteristically, Rove and his untimid President want to play for all the marbles. They have increased Republican Party registrations, especially in the South and key battleground states, and boast of "hiving off" chunks of Democrats into their camp. What Rove is looking for is something Bush did not get in the last election: a mandate. They are already laying plans for the ambitious things they want to do in a second term—Social Security overhaul, tax reform, Medicare restructuring and even more tax cuts.
So, scary stuff. Anyway, an interesting article that you might want to check out, if you haven't already.
12:41:23 AM  |
No comments:
Post a Comment