Victor Davis Hanson’s NRO column this week picks up on the phenomenom that Professor Ribstein noted some time ago — the almost pathological hatred of President Bush exhibited by some on the political left. The entire column is well worth reading, but Professor Hanson’s conclusion is particularly insightful and also cautionary:
In short, the Left hates George W. Bush for who he is rather than what he does. Southern conservatism, evangelical Christianity, a black-and-white worldview, and a wealthy man’s disdain for elite culture ? none by itself earns hatred, of course, but each is a force multiplier of the other and so helps explain the evolution of disagreement into pathological venom.
September 11 cooled the furor of these aristocratic critics, but Iraq re-ignited it. Not voting for George Bush is, of course understandable and millions in fact will do precisely that. But for those haters who demonize the man, their knee-jerk disgust tells us far more about their own shallow characters than it does anything about our wartime president.
And there is a great danger in all these manifestations of pure hatred. We are in a war. And in these tumultuous days, the Left’s unhinged odium will resonate with and embolden not only our enemies abroad, but also the deranged, dangerous folk here at home.
The left hates George Bush because he’s a bad president, and the fact that he was going to be a bad president was entirely predictable.
Like most people, I didn’t vote for him. Immediately after 9/11 I wasn’t particularly displeased with his performance, though essentially all he had to do was avoid sending Osama Bin Ladin a cute puppy and he would have gotten his 90% approval rating.
He then, of course, sends Osama a cute puppy. Named Irag.
Failed businessman, failed governor, failed president.
That’s why the left hates Bush.
Frankly, the alleged failures of the Bush Administration do not explain the hatred that you express. Under any reasonable comparison, the Bush has been no less effective than Carter, who never experienced the vituperative hatred from the Right that Bush has received from the Left. Perhaps that can be explained by the fact that Carter ran against a strong candidate (Reagan) while Bush is running against a relatively weak one in Kerry. But my sense is that even this does not fully explain the antagonism that certain parts of the Left exhibit toward Bush. And, as regular readers of this blog know, this is from one who is not impressed by the record of the Bush Administration.
I don’t recall the Supreme Court putting Carter in office.
I also don’t recall Carter invading a country that posed no threat. Or one that posed a threat, for that matter. There was a definite lack of invading other countries during the entire Carter administration.
Neither one of them can correctly pronounce ‘nuclear.” That’s about the only comparison I can think of.
It’s a bit difficult to have a rational discussion with one who starts from the assumption that Carter’s foreign policy of appeasement was successful.
Moreover, your myopic stance regarding the standard for a successful foreign policy (i.e., whether a President authorizes an invasion) is thankfully not shared by many American leaders, including Mr. Kerry.
?…is thankfully not shared by many American leaders, including Mr. Kerry.?
Tom and I are essentially on the same page. However, does he really believe that John Kerry has an unambiguous position on foreign policy? I perceive nothing even slightly consistent. The flip-flopping charge is not a slander invented by Karl Rove. No, it is the pervasive mindset of the Kerry campaign.
On top of that, we now possess reasonable certitude that Kerry is a liar. The Christmas in Cambodia myth cannot be explained away. It reveals a man who will do virtually anything to help himself politically. President Bush is obviously the lesser of evils.
“Tom and I are essentially on the same page.”
Whoops, I should clarify that I’m talking about Tom Kirkendall.