Victor Hanson wrote an interesting article in the National Review last Friday, which looked to discover the fuel which continues to feed the Bush hatred fire. His theory is that these outspoken haters of Bush, with Mike Moore as their leader, hate our President not for what he has done, but for who he is.
Despite what John Kerry says, he would probably be handling the War in Iraq the same way. He continually stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and would have likely used the War on Terror to displace Saddam as well. The economy, as most of the vocal Bush haters should know, is less the President's responsibility than either candidate likes to claim. The recurrance of a big budget deficit is at least partially a result of unavoidable increased military spending in the post-Clinton years and patially a result of social programs that Bush's more conservative supporters dislike. Kerry is a big spender too, though, or will be.
So why the hatred? One really can't blame Bush for where we are as a country, at least relative to Kerry or any other potential replacement, because we'd likely be in a similar place.
Granted, hatred is rarely a rational emotion, but you would think that one would hear less hateful ad hominem attacks on Bush and more rational explanations of why he's not doing a good job or why Kerry would do a better job, and that's not what I get from most people. I imagine that I'll receive a number of comments regarding the superiority of Kerry's proposals and that's great...I'd love to hear them...that's the purpose of this piece in the first place.
Hanson asks the question:
But what is not explicable in terms of rational disagreement is the Left's pathological hatred of George W. Bush. It transcends all contention over the issues, the Democratic hurt over the Florida elections, and even the animus once shown Bill Clinton by the activist Right. From where does this near-religious anger arise and what does it portend?
His first guess is that the hatred is emotional rather than rational:
Let's start with the admission that much of the invective is irrational, fueled by emotion rather than reason. Thus the black leadership uses slurs such as "Taliban" and "Confederacy" against Bush, even though no other president has selected an African-American secretary of State and national-security adviser or pledged so many billions for AIDS relief in Africa. Liberals talk of social programs starved, but domestic spending under Bush increased at annual rates greater than during any Democratic administration in recent history.
It must be personal, Hanson argues. It is of course insulting, that our President, a Republican speaks with the tongue of an unapologetic Texan good ole' boy:
Bush is a southerner, with a drawl — but not one who is either liberal or Democratic. We forget just how rare that is.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - jadester
how about his extreme cronyism, and the fact that his only aim in life seems to be to make himself and a few of his select rich mates even richer?
"...pledged so many billions for AIDS relief in Africa" last i heard, there is quite a difference between what he's pledged up til now and what he's actually given
2 - David Flanagan
jadester,
He didn't "pledge" AIDS relief, he asked for and Congress approved $15 billion in AIDS relief. And this is a national security issue. AIDS is such a huge problem in Africa that it threatens to destabilize the entire continent. This amount by far is the most pledged by any nation ever for the cause of AIDS relief, but it's not going to just get dumped into the continent and forgotten, it's targeted to programs and efforts that will decrease the occurence of AIDS and help save lives.
David
3 - Jeremy Chrysler
I believe that around $350 million of the $15 billion has been disbursed so far.
I have some difficultly with the patent issues revolving around generic AIDS drugs. The brand name products are too expensive for most of the people in the world that have AIDS, particularly in Africa, so really the only possibility, outside of giving the current brand name manufacturers great tax write-off's for donating huge amounts of drugs, is to let people use the generics.
African companies are already realizing that the economic cost of replacing thousands of workers is greater than supplying workers with AIDS drugs, and I hope that we are not too far behind in recognizing the real cost of AIDS in Africa is greater than what it will cost to slow its propogation.
4 - Hal Pawluk
Hanson's false premise makes for a nice exercise in creative writing, but his claims, speculations and conclusions bear only a passing resemblance to reality.
While some may indeed hate Bush, even those few have the same valid reasons for replacing him as the majority of his opponents do.
Bush and his administration have failed in every area of governance that matters.
His implementation of the war on terror (and this one is his) has increased terrorism world-wide and has done little to improve security within this country. (Plants, ports and infrastructure are only nominally safer than they were before 9/11).
The record budget deficits month after month and year after year are largely caused by the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
His trade policies have resulted in ever-increasing trade deficits (and trillions of dollars owed to foreign nations, a bill that will come due).
On jobs, we went from 4 million unemployed in July 2000 to 8.2 million unemployed in July 2004 (not counting the nearly 5 million the BLS says are looking for work but not counted as unemployed).
Similarly for health care, energy, stuffing industry over-sight agencies with industry lobbyists, misusing the Patriot Act, and just about anything else that counts.
It's mildly interesting, but Hanson's straw man is only that.
5 - BB
Hanson is correct on many accounts, but there is more going here than meets the eye.
Politics aside, Americans also hate Bush because they need a scapegoat for all their fears after 9-11.
Americans resent the loss of their freedom and being held hostage to the wims of homeland security bulletins.
Saddam is out of the picture without the benefit of WMD’s to justify his ousting, and we haven’t been able to catch Osama.
So Bush has become the default fixation for all our frustrations.
6 - Jeremy Chrysler
Hal,
Which premise do you find to be false? That people hate Bush?
7 - Hal Pawluk
That's disingenuous, Jeremy.
Sorry, no time for games.
8 - Shark
Feh. Another post from Wonderland.
For the record:
I hated Bush when he was my Governor. He's an ignorant frat boy who failed in every endeavor he ever initiated. He's a spoiled, vindictive little brat who had the world handed to him on a silver platter. He's an ignorant turd of a human being who wouldn't know history if it bit him on the ass.
He's President because a cabal of Neo-Cons figured he'd make a good puppet if they fixed him up with some land in Texas, a chain saw, and a bass boat.
Oh, and his eyes are too close together.
Gimmee a sec... I'll think of more reasons...
xxoo
Shark
9 - Shark
BB, just a tip: Freud is dead.
carry on.
10 - boomcrashbaby
I don't hate Bush, perhaps this comment would be better under a blog of 'Why I am a Democrat'.
Conservatives rant about Theresa Heinz Kerry being a 'bitch'. They rant about how Kerry panders to voters who vote with their bong pipes or their bungholes. They rant about how Hillary Clinton is a dog. (note: all these comments are from conservatives on this site alone, however, I see this type of talk everytime a conservative speaks). Conservatives are the ones filled with hate.
In the media, they refuse to focus on facts, instead clinging only to false rhetoric and slander, or skew and misrepresent facts and statistics to further their agenda. They believe in the right to discriminate against law-abiding taxpayers. They are intolerant, self-serving and hypocritical.
They assume the world looks through the same ideological lens that they do. Because they are so filled with hate, they assume their opponents are as well, so they create blogs entitled 'why do you HATE Bush', with hate in capital letters to amplify negativity.
They believe in their own pocketbook over the welfare of mankind. They are against medical care for those who cannot afford it, because they don't want to pay for it, yet they don't care if millions of sickly people would then get on the same plane as them, or walk down the same shopping aisle as them, coughing all over the products, etc. Their pocketbook is more important than the teachings of Jesus - the teachings of compassion and helping the poor and downtrodden. They are greedy and compassionateless.
They tout moral character and moral behavior above all else, yet when THEY fail (Rush with his addiction, Jack Ryan with his fetish, etc.) they forgive. They do not forgive their opponents, but rather twist the knife in the back deeper for their human failings.
They resort to unscrupulous tactics and witchhunts, at taxpayer expense (Kenneth Starr), they sabotage elections in this free country, they mislead and deceive. They equate or want to empower corporations with the same rights and privileges of a human being, when that only can happen at the expense of human beings. They cling to moral ideologies when it suits them (abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, etc.), and disregard moral ideologies when it does not suit them (death penalty, greed, envy, divorce, etc.)
They have their interpretation of what is moral and right, and will stop at nothing to make sure that all of the diverse melting pot that is America must live under their ideology. They want children of all faiths to be taught creationism in school. They want their 10 Commandments in federal buildings.
They put ideological blinders on. They believe that if we do not educate youth about sex and condoms, but tell youth to just wait, then youth will do so. They believe a President who has a vision on the war on terror is more important than the vision itself.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds:
1) The U.S. should get out of the United Nations, BUT our highest priority was enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
2) A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind with little regulation.
3) A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.
4) HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the interest of the public at heart.
5) Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
6) Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, but then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his reelection campaign as the "war president".
7) The public has a right to know about Hilary Clinton's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.
8) What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s was of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
9) Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a "spirit of international harmony".
10) Toot the 'small government' horn to death but then spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same time returning as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it.
They are against Affirmative Action because they believe it gives preferential treatment based on race, but they refuse to acknowledge that to get to the point where Affirmative Action comes into play (employment, college admissions), the playing field is unequal to begin with.
I could fill a book with all the hypocrisies and all that is wrong with conservative ideology. I am opposed to George Bush because he is a representative of the conservative platform. I believe his administration to be corrupt (Halliburton/energy). I believe his ideological blinders when it comes to terrorism is causing America more harm than help. But I do not HATE anybody, because I am a true, proud liberal.
11 - boomcrashbaby
I need to update number 8 to say:
8) What Bill Clinton AND John Kerry did in the 1960s was of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
12 - Hal Pawluk
Write the book, BCB.
13 - Jeremy Chrysler
Hal,
I didn't intend to be disingenuous, I apologize if I came off that way. I'm a bit busy myself today and I suppose it was intellectual laziness that prevented me from responding to your post in a more thorough manner. Unless something bizarre happens, that won't likely happen today, although I'm sure we can work through it later.
Boomcrashbaby, thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree that many conservatives are loud at the mouth and I am frustrated anytime I hear anyone on any side of the political spectrum resort to insulting their political opponents. It makes no sense and it polarizes, leaving little room for open, honest discourse.
Regarding my capitilization of HATE in the title of the post, I suppose that I was emphasizing the negativity, and for that I am culpable. For the record, I do not hate John Kerry. I think he's a charming individual who seems to be pretty intelligent. His general equivocality gives me pause, however.
I have heard some negativity from the right directed at THK and H. Clinton, among others, but I don't think it's anywhere near the level of vitriol I've heard directed towards Bush.
Irrespective of the source or the target, it seems to me that the reckless anger towards ones political opposites results in a lack of action.
I could go on and on about this and I believe that I could explain my personal beliefs (in the context of my own life's actions) to you in a way that would cause you, if not to like me, then at least to understand where I am coming from and perhaps even respect me.
14 - BB
Shark: A Freudian tip.
Bitterness is a symptom of penis envy.
But you're still cool in my books. ;-)
xxoo
15 - Mike Kole
Hal- There is way more to the deficits than the tax cuts. The cuts contributed, but only in a very modest way.
The deficits were caused by a flat economy which featured reduced incomes across the board, to individuals and corporations of all sizes and statures. While revenues tanked, old spending commitments remained while new commitments were added.
The relative earning power of each player in the economy is far more crucial than any single tax break. The tax rates can be halved if revenues triple, and you'll end up with more net renevue.
16 - Hal Pawluk
You're wrong on this one, Mike.
The tax cut is about $270 billion of the approximately $450 billion deficit.
Corporate sales, profits and margins are way, way, way up - details in last week's Business Week. I don't have a copy handy but do remember that in the Big Pharma and Merged Big Oil segments were extra hot.
17 - boomcrashbaby
Boomcrashbaby, thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree that many conservatives are loud at the mouth and I am frustrated anytime I hear anyone on any side of the political spectrum resort to insulting their political opponents
One other thing I should point out is that the most vitrolic venom from the left that you hear, are from individuals on the net, or those on the extreme left who do not represent the majority of liberals. This does not apply conversely.
i.e. We often hear of the 'liberal' media, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. yet while Aaron Brown, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, etc. might present a news story with a liberal bias, they are not comparable to O'Reilly, Coulter, Novak, Rush, etc.
The left presents it's case with a bias, perhaps. The right presents it's case with bias and wit venom, and it is done via the media and the media correspondents, which can only indicate that it is representative of the true feelings of conservatives. I've never heard Tom Brokaw or Aaron Brown rant with the venom that Rush or Scarborough or Hannity does. And conservatives give these venomous pundits legitimacy. Bias might extend across both parties, but hatred belongs to one.
I could go on and on about this and I believe that I could explain my personal beliefs (in the context of my own life's actions) to you in a way that would cause you, if not to like me, then at least to understand where I am coming from and perhaps even respect me
It is hard for me to like or dislike anybody who is no more than words on a screen. Although I do admit there are people who I look forward to reading, and people who I don't. So I might not like you, per se, I'm probably incapable of understanding where you are coming from, but one thing is for sure, I won't HATE you. :-)
18 - Jim Carruthers
Why do I hate Bush, because they were nothing more than a pretty-boy watered down video rip-off of Soundgarden-Pearl Jam grunge whatever, and the fact they have faded into obscurity is only justification for opposing them in the first place.
19 - Mike Kole
Hal- I'd love to see sources on the numbers. Forgive me if you have posted them previously and I have simply not seen them.
If we use the numbers you supplied, I'm still looking for gaps to fill. $270B of $450B is explained by tax cuts. However, more than the remaining $180B of deficit can be explained by spending increases. Why isn't the deficit larger, then?
20 - Rodney Welch
When conservatives first started whimpering and wringing their hands about "Bush hatred," I admit I felt a certain degree of schadenfreude. The Clinton hatred I suffered through for eight years was far more heated, concentrated and poisonous -- flagged for years by most of talk radio America, Richard Mellon Scaife and finally reaching its pustulent zenith with Kenneth Starr. Even Jesse Helms said at one point that Clinton shouldn't visit North Carolina because he'd be assassinated -- which I think he said with some degree of approval. Has anyone yet said anything like that to Bush? No. I say to conservatives everywhere: dry up and take heart, our hatred will never reach the level of yours and for that you can be grateful. You guys are the gun nuts, remember, not us.
The reasons for general Bush contempt are not to be found in Hansen's clueless piece; the most searchingly honest Bush-hater in the world likely will not find himself reflected in Hansen's comments, which mostly amounts to grasping at straws. What Hansen reveals isn't why people hate Bush, but why Hansen loves him. What he misses about Bush -- or what, I guess, he finds approving -- is what really sticks in the craw of people who dislike Bush: the president's obnoxious fuck-you swagger. He's not some man of the people who fled the comforts of privilege; he's a bully with a superiority complex who is in the business of protecting privilege. I look at him -- and a lot of Americans look at him -- and see the summation of every schoolyard thug, every roofie-dropping frat boy, every miserable rich kid who made the lives of others miserable knowing perfectly well that he could get away with it. He's always gotten away with it. He was a dumbass who got into Yale on daddy's ticket, a National Guardsman who conveniently absented himkself on weekends, a wretched businessman, a lousy governor, and -- thanks to the Supreme Court -- one of the very worst presidents this country has ever had, and he rides through it all with a smile and bearing that says: "Motherfucker I'm just getting warmed up. I'll rape your whole fucking family, set your house on fire and roast marshmallows on your charred remains and no one will ever touch me." It's no real wonder why people would despise a president whose motto ought to be -- indeed, whose message to the world at large has been -- "I'm George W. Bush. Kiss my ass."
Jonathan Chait -- who has a far more penetrating view of Bush hatred than Hansen, and which is all the more compelling because he speaks as a bona fide Bush-hater -- put it this way in The New Republic: "He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school--the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more."
21 - Shark
Boomcrash, excellent summary!
BB, re: yer Freudian analysis:
1) penis envy doesn't effect the flaccid (me)
2) Psychology is not a Science.
xxoo,
S
re: Jonathon Chait - YOU MEAN I'M NOT ALONE?!!
IE. compare his statements to mine in Comment #8
I rest my case.
22 - Hal Pawluk
Mike, the data was probably in Business Week or the Wall Street Journal (NOT the neocon OpEd pages or OpinionJournal).
I'm probably going to blog something on taxes in a while and will try to get a definitive cite.
23 - BB
Shark:
"penis envy doesn't effect the flaccid (me)"
Hmmm. Low blow brother. That hit a soft spot.
24 - boomcrashbaby
Boomcrash, excellent summary!
Thanks, Shark. It's truly how I feel about the conservative ideology. You know what's sad is that there is an assumption that one wants Bush out of office because of hate, when the reality for many is that one wants Kerry in because of love, compassion and concern (for fellow man).
(And I already know which right-wingers are going to tear that statement apart, with comments such as 'sensitive', 'wimpy', and of course...gay.)
25 - Rodney Welch
And they would not be wrong to do so, would they?