|
samboct -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/17/2007 8:12:44 AM)
|
Firm (assuming you're still reading this)
I think we've got some convergence and something of an answer. Debate plunges into bathos when one side ignores facts presented in order to maintain the fiction that its premises were correct. If you're debating someone and they insist that the sky is green, while you insist that its blue- then they look at the sky- and still insist it's not blue- this is not a debate- this becomes bathos. We cannot even agree on basic facts, because the facts have been spun in such a fashion that we no longer know what truth is in this country.
We have such an example here- to whit-GWB's stated reason for invading Iraq were WMD, against the wishes of a significant minority in this country, and certainly in opposition to world opinion. When GWB's men failed to find a smoking gun, rather than take responsibility for his actions, the stated goal of the invasion was now altered to "freeing Iraqi's from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein." This is a failure to acknowledge error and take responsibility for one's actions. (Very reminiscent of the second presidential debate, when GWB was asked what mistakes he's made- his response was, "I'm sure I've made some, I just can't recall what they are right now.") It also means that the rules of a democracy involving polite debate are not being followed- owning up to ones errors enables you to point out the errors of others in a constructive process. Refusing to own up to one's errors, and continuing to point out the failings of others will (and has) degenerated to bathos. Thus this article is counter productive- pointing fingers without acknowledging culpability merely breeds further bathos, and does not lead to the resumption of polite debate.
Firm- I think you need to ask yourself if the author is sharp enough to figure this out- then what is to be gained by further bathos? It's not a pretty picture.
The premise of the article is that hatred of the neocons (I hesitate to call them Republicans, because Lincoln would be rolling over in his grave- and so would Eisenhower.) is unjustified and damages the political process. But by failing to determine why the liberals "hate" GWB, the author does not allow the possibility that such hatred is justified. (This is like Goebbels asking - Why do the Jews hate us Nazis so much?) And while you may consider the parallel with the Nazis odious, my point is that GWBs actions have far too much in common with the Nazi's destruction of the Weimar republic to be quickly dismissed. If they did not, then my parallel is merely laughable.
As noted in the posts above- GWB's actions are not those of a president of a democracy- cognizant that he is an elected leader and responsible to all- even those who did not vote for him. His actions are those of a despot- bent on achieving his own ends at all costs. While the actions of a president should not be hated, the actions of a despot should be despised- our founding fathers would have no problem with our anger towards a man who has been attempting to subvert our constitution and remove our liberties in the name of a trumped up war.
The simple answer is that GWB is hated because his actions are not those of a president- he has violated his oath to guard the people of this country and their Constitution and his lies have cost American lives (and tens of thousands of others) liberties, and their standing in the world.
I also think Cloudboy's political analysis was also accurate- Clinton was far more a centrist than GWB. He was certainly no liberal.
For the folks that equate Hilary bashing with GWB bashing and justify it on the basis that the liberals are bashing Bush- Hilary is a New York senator who has been acting within the bounds of her elected position and the Constitution. As such, she is entitled to the respect that any senator should enjoy- whether or not you agree with their decisions. For the PC folks though, physical descriptions such as Thunder Thighs are within bounds of accepted political discourse- through the 1800s and much of the early part of the 20th century, wealthy capitalists were often depicted with bloated bellies. While I may not agree with many of Hilary's political decisions, I've got to give her credit for guts- in the debate on Thursday- she certainly looked perfectly willing to take the heat of the kitchen. (Hell, I'm from Connecticut- I'm voting for Dodd. Richardson would be my second choice.) GWB on the other hand, is not entitled to such respect since his subversion of the Constitution shows that he has abrogated the duties of his office. As I've said before- I'll give GWB credit for a lot of chutzpah, but neither his goals nor his means are laudable.
Sam
|
|
|
|
