Thursday, July 29, 2004

A Liberal Asks: What If Bush Is Right?

This one from Esquire surprised me:

The Case for George W. Bush

Some key points in the article...

George W. Bush is an asshole, isn't he?... He has always struck me as a small man, or at least as a man too small for the task at hand, and therefore a man doomed to address the discrepancy between his soul and his situation with displays of political muscle that succeed only in drawing attention to his diminution. He not only has led us into war, he seems to get off on war, and it's the greedy pleasure he so clearly gets from flexing his biceps or from squaring his shoulders and setting his jaw or from landing a plane on an aircraft carrier—the greedy pleasure the war president finds in playacting his own attitudes of belligerence—that permitted me the greedy pleasure of hating him.


Just so you know I wasn't kidding about the liberal part. This guy is clearly no fan of Dubya. He hates him with near moonbat fervor. Which is what makes the rest of the article so interesting.

He starts wandering off the lefty reservation right about here:

As easy as it is to say that we can't abide the president because of the gulf between what he espouses and what he actually does , what haunts me is the possibility that we can't abide him because of us—because of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.


Do not adjust your monitor. You read that right. And what's more, it's not a set up for some later zinger. The guy dives right into this theme in earnest.

Check out the paragraph immediately following the above:

The people who dislike George W. Bush have convinced themselves that opposition to his presidency is the most compelling moral issue of the day. Well, it's not. The most compelling moral issue of the day is exactly what he says it is, when he's not saying it's gay marriage. The reason he will be difficult to unseat in November—no matter what his approval ratings are in the summer—is that his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated. The first will always sound merely convenient when compared with the second. Worse, the gulf between the two kinds of certainty lends credence to the conservative notion that liberals have settled for the conviction that Bush is distasteful as a substitute for conviction—because it's easier than conviction.


As Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds would say, read the whole thing.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home