Bush-bashing: international sport?

Christian Science Monitor ^ | March 2, 2004 | Brendan O'Neill

[Cincinatus' Wife]

LONDON - Walking through north London recently, I noticed that the spray-painted slogan on the side of a railway bridge that once said "Don't attack Iraq" has been replaced with: "Bring down Bush."

In my local bookstore, a display of books on "American Politics" offers up Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country?" alongside "Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America," by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, "The Lies of George W. Bush," by David Corn, and two titles that make fun of President Bush's incoherent speaking style. The British media, meanwhile, revel in claims that Mr. Bush was a "coward" and a "chicken" for not serving in Vietnam.

The buildup to the US presidential election may not have the same urgency here as it does in New York or Los Angeles, but the sport of "bashing the president" is proving to be a hit among Brits. As someone who opposes just about everything Bush stands for - in particular his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - I might be expected to relish this Bush-bashing. In fact, it leaves me cold.

Election-watching from this side of "the pond," I feel that the bashers have no political alternative to offer that the American electorate might vote for, fight for, or get excited about. Instead, they poke fun at the president, scaremongering and questioning his integrity. This is the politics of the schoolyard, with namecalling and snitching taking the place of a proper political debate.

Consider Mr. Moore and his imitators, who have made lucrative careers out of cartoonish critiques of Big Bad Bush. In the conclusion to "Dude, Where's My Country?" Moore declares: "There is probably no greater imperative facing the nation than the defeat of George W. Bush in the 2004 election." Ms. Ivins, coauthor of "Bushwhacked," goes so far as to define herself as a "Bush-hater."

Some of these anti-Bush books have big, bright photos of the president looking silly and lists of the idiotic statements he has made (printed in big, bold type, no doubt to help the "stupid white men" of America get the message). But in their rush to proclaim their hatred for Bush, they fail to outline their own vision for America.

Could it be that they don't have one?

Some Bush-bashers merely make fun of the president's personal traits and failings. "The Bush Dyslexicon" by Mark Crispin Miller is a compilation of the president's public-speaking slipups (of which there are indeed many). There are websites devoted to photos of the president looking like a chimpanzee. In Britain, reports have referred to Bush as a "cowboy," a "redneck," and a "vulgar Texan." Such name-calling is a sorry substitute for debate, and surely undeserving of good Americans' time or consideration, much less their votes.

Worst of all, some in the anti-Bush brigade try to scare people into voting against him. In "Bushwhacked," Ivins and Mr. Dubose tell of a New Jersey family allegedly being poisoned by an insecticide plant because the Republican-run Environmental Protection Agency refuses to do anything about it; they write of food conglomerates that allegedly knowingly spread deadly listeria, as another downside to "life in George W. Bush's America." Raising people's fears about their health is surely the lowest form of political engagement. It plays on irrational concerns rather than exploring any hopes and ambitions they might have for reshaping the world outside their front doors.

With little by way of political conviction, many Bush-haters resort to moral blackmailing, or hectoring the electorate. Bush is an idiot, they say, so you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to vote for him. Or they claim that voting Bush is bad for your health; or you might inadvertently help to poison some poor family in New Jersey.

Taken together, all this looks like an incoherent rant, a scream of rage against the Bush administration or "stupid white men," or chemical plants, or global warming, or political power in general. The aim may be to expose Bush as incompetent, stupid, and dangerous - but the anti-Bush brigades often do a better job of exposing themselves as politically lazy, cynical, and lacking in vision.

Indeed, if they aren't careful, such critics could prove to be Bush's secret weapon: The American electorate may tire of being cajoled and frightened into voting against Bush, rather than politically convinced to do so. Some might even be tempted to vote for him as a way of snubbing the critics who have patronized them. America's voters deserve better than this.

• Brendan O'Neill is assistant editor of spiked-online.com.

[stands2reason]

Bump

[Texasforever]

Personally the more the "world" hates Bush the more I support him.

[Fenris6]

The author fails to note that this bush-bashing is a double-edged weapon. I now hate Europe as much as they hate Bush. I hope you guys choke on it. And don't bother asking us to rescue you again when you supplicate yourselves to yet another set of socialist tyrants.

[Texasforever]

Buh-Bye

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The Left hated Reagan with a passion too. He zeroed in on communism. Now comes Bush zeroed in on terrorists. The Left is beside themselves with fear and loathing.

[demlosers]

The U.S WW2 Lend Lease program was not totally paid for by our allies troll. See you later loser.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

That's a fine attitude. Didn't we "pay" enough with blood and treasure?

[demlosers]

Your intelligent kind belongs over here [DUh] where your talents can be fawned over. What did say your IQ was .98 among orangutans?

[Fledermaus]

Boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo...so you whiney Eurotrash couldn't pay for the weapons you needed to defeat the socialist, fascist monster you allowed to run free because your failed social systems couldn't create an economy viable enough to build them yourselves or raise the cash needed to purchase them.

Boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo hoo!

[Don W]

Here, kittie kittie kittie.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

WORLD WAR II CASUALTIES

Of the 405,399 Americans that lost their lives during World War II, there were 78,976 Missing in Action. Of the remainder the next of kin of 93,242 elected to have their loved ones buried at our cemeteries. Below is a listing by cemetery showing the number buried and the number that were declared Missing in Action in the vicinity of the cemetery. The listing of the World War II database, now on the web contains the 172,218 names of those buried at our cemeteries, those Missing in Action and those buried or lost at sea. It does not contain the names of the 233,181 Americans returned to the United States for burial. You may contact us by e-mail at operations@abmc.gov

Conflict Cost in $ Billions Current

World War I --- 1,911.47
World War II --- 15,655.17
Source

[Qwinn]

Uh huh, that claim of an IQ of 98 is quite typical for people who get 1200 on their SAT's, in the age when they were considerably more difficult, BEFORE leftists decided to dumb them down tremendously so no one's "self-esteem" would suffer.

But yes, Bush got 1200 on his SAT's. It's not genius level but no one of just average intelligence was going to get that in the years he took it either. You probably never took SAT's, being from Europe - too bad, I'd love to know what you would've gotten on them.

I don't think it would've been too high, considering that the words you seem to find so chilling - "You're either with us or against us" - were first spoken by Hillary Clinton on September 13, 2001. No one complained when she said it, of course. We know how that works.

Qwinn

[backhoe]

youre always "yanking" on your dicks.such hipocrites,sell weapons to everyone and wonder why they hate you.how very stupid.

So, you have an illiteracy problem?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

[you should be grateful,if it wasnt for you americans making money of the war the great depression will still be going.but me personally,i think it still is.cant even build nuclear weapons yourself you had to get the englands "intelligence" ha ha ha there is a reason youre called yanks,because youre always "yanking" on your dicks.such hipocrites,sell weapons to everyone and wonder why they hate you.how very stupid.]

***Indeed, if they aren't careful, such critics could prove to be Bush's secret weapon:***

Nothing like a poster to prove the author's premise.

I bet the IQ is lower than the waist measurement.

[driftless]

Those who say the hate-Bush invective is the worse they've ever seen probably weren't around when Reagan was prez. I seem to recall just about the same level of invective. And if I were a far left-wing nut like Ivins and Moore, I'd be a drooling incoherent fool too considering how Bush is failing to facilitate the further follies of malfunctioning far-leftism.