State of the Disunion
Tonight Bush gets the big stage to lay out his agenda. If I’m through with my work, I might tune in just so I’ll be able to understand the jokes on The Daily Show tonight. If the presentation is as advertised, I hope and expect it will get a frosty reception from the Democrats. I’m looking forward to those reaction shots of a stone-faced Ted Kennedy or Chuck Schumer, or our own Jim McDermott rolling his eyes and shaking his head at some inane utterance from the podium.
Ordinarily, Presidents deserve a respectful hearing when they address the nation. But ordinarily, Presidents craft both a program and language designed to appeal to the national interest, centered on objectives that we can all support even when we disagree over how to achieve them. Bush, the great uniter, is a different animal. He oozes contempt for Democratic values, Democratic interests, and Democratic citizens. He is as hostile a partisan as has occupied the White House since Nixon, and his proposals can only plausibly be understood in the context of the benefits they bring to his supporters and the punishment they mete out to everyone else.
Experience shows there is no benefit to Democratic lawmakers who compromise with the majority, and there is certainly no benefit for their constituents. Cold silence is the best he deserves, and it’s events like this that make me jealous of the raucous behavior that predominates in the British House of Commons, when hissing, hostile muttering and various disrespectful noises are common reactions to objectionable remarks by the opposition speaker. All comity does is perpetuate the illusion that Bush represents an iota more of America than the 51% who re-elected him.
Typically, Republicans seem to dismiss the intensity of opposition that Bush has generated by his actions, his expressed values, and his policies as “Bush hatred.” I guess some people are motivated by distaste for his personal habits or family, or other traits superficial to the job of governing. But really, if you take politics seriously and see certain core values as fundamental to the American identity, it’s hard not to have a strong reaction when someone not only disparages those values every time he speaks, but also takes dead aim at eradicating them from public life root and branch, replacing them with something foul and ugly. I credit the anti-Clinton crowd with the same sincere intensity, although Clinton seemed to me to give his enemies far less to complain about from a policy perspective, being objectively closer to the center on most issues than Bush.
The most objectionable aspect of Bush’s economic agenda from a values standpoint is the notion, visible in nearly every proposal, that if you’re not successful, you don’t count. The entire Republican program, from tax cuts to the phase-out of Social Security to rollbacks of environmental and workplace regulation and tort “reform” are designed to make it easier for the rich and powerful to maintain their wealth and influence, without the annoyance of accountability. Clinton, by the way, was guilty of this in small ways, as any party in government is inevitably corrupted by the undue influence of money in a pluralistic democracy. But at least the Democrats don’t elevate greed and venality to a point of principle, and their attempts to create opportunities for those lower in the socio-economic ladder are often sincere and occasionally quite successful.
And tellingly, the Democrats don’t need to conceal their policy objectives with deceptive labeling. The Family Leave Act, for example, provides for paid family leave under circumstances we all would recognize as important. The Minimum Wage mandates a minimum wage. Welfare Reform reformed (and ended) welfare. You don’t see Democrats waging war against the English language when terms that accurately describe their program (such as the Republican-coined “privatization”) turn out to be unpopular with the public. Switching labels without changing the substance of the content is a tactic that works on the stupid and the inattentive. Republicans earn the charge of debasing the discourse and insulting the intelligence of the public when they engage in it.
Foreign policy is one area where it would be nice to see some agreement. Unfortunately, here we encounter the problem of Bush’s messianic complex in full flower. To agree with him on his approach to solving the problem of terrorism by forcibly imposing democracy (in the absence of law and order) on sovereign states beyond our borders, you have to accept a view of international law based entirely on the will of the powerful. This may serve our short-term interests, but it turns the clock back to an extremely dangerous time in international relations, when powerful states used whatever justification was at hand to press their interests at the expense of smaller neighbors, often through violence. Would we want to see the “Bush Doctrine” applied by China against Taiwan? Or by Russia against, say, oil-rich Azerbaijan? Or by a newly-democratized Iraq against Kuwait, pressing the same ancient grudge that Saddam did in 1990?
Bush seems to expect that when he says it’s all about democracy and anti-terrorism, that everyone should simply believe him. After all, he’s a straight shooter. And, by the way, there’s all those American bombers and missiles to consider. As with domestic policy, Bush expresses a fundamental contempt for opposing views, and takes the advantageous position of his party, or of America, as evidence of being right, when in fact he’s only stronger.
This idea of rule of the stronger isn’t a strange or shocking notion. It’s been the rule of most human affairs since the dawn of time, and there’s a good argument to suggest that it’s the “natural order of things.” It’s even occasionally been the principle of American governance, as during the Indian wars, the Mexican-American war and the Spanish-American war (and domestically via slavery, segregation, nativism, and elsewhere) though I don’t know of many people who consider those to be the proudest moments in our history.
However, as someone who was raised as an ethical and tolerant person in a society that celebrates democracy, equality, fair play and rule of law, the idea that we would elevate “will of the stronger” as the guiding principle of American government after everything that history has taught us, is simply offensive and appalling. And yet, that’s what Bush stands for, straight up, and it’s the idea that he’s rallied his most obnoxious supporters behind – even though many of them are likely to get the short end of it.
If there’s any value worth defending, it’s basic fairness and respect. I have nothing against power, I have nothing against success. But as a fairly successful person, let me tell you that pissing all over those who aren’t successful isn’t a very good strategy for long-term prosperity, security or happiness. As personal behavior, it’s distasteful and obnoxious. As political behavior, it’s provocative, misguided, counter-productive, and stands in obscene opposition to everything America should stand for at home and in the world. It’s what Bush reeks of every time he opens his mouth or sends his minions into action. And it’s why I won’t be clapping if I happen to tune in the speech.
Unrelated note: there appears, once again, to be something wrong with the comments. Specifically, <returns> do not appear in the text, so it all runs together in one big paragraph, unless you are The Raven. Please bear with this until we find a solution. Your input, as always, is appreciated.
2:33:39 PM 
|
|
