I'm not sure what babaram is doing, but he's certainly not providing a cogent defense of his, or anyone's, views.
This will be the shortest post in the history of my submitting here. Rejoice!
And I'll see you all at the polls in November.Comment Posted By hunkafunk On 15.03.2006 @ 15:43
Hey SShiell, thanks for your level headed and interesting response to my posts. I appreciate that there are some people on the board that understand what a respectful approach to a discussion actually is.
â€œI agree with you that their motives are fear. And if I were in Bushâ€™s shoes I would be greatly feared too â€“ of another occurrence of 9/11 or an even worse one.â€
I donâ€™t think Bush is fearful of another terrorist attack and therefore acts accordingly out of pure necessity. Although this may be one element, more importantly to me is that I see Bush using this displaced fear as a means to build momentum in the populace for unrelated agendas.
There was an unending and immediate fear of instant nuclear annihilation of all civilization for 50 years in the last half of the 20th century. It could be argued that the danger of assured mutual destruction from our enemies in that time was more immediate and deadlier than any potential terrorist threat today. Yet during the Cold War, those in charge of the government rarely used fear as an everyday impetus to pursue unrelated agendas in regards to their political parameters, which is what Iâ€™ve seen done in this administration.
In my view, Bush and those who have molded his administration have misused their position in history to corrode essential elements of American government, blurring the lines of the three branches and unnecessarily bloating government and expanding executive power in ways that donâ€™t really help fight terrorism (or any enemy for that matter).
Whether or not this was done in the name of â€˜protectingâ€™ me, doesnâ€™t matter to me. A parent can protect me from the dangers of the world by locking me in the basement, but that doesnâ€™t make it the correct move. Likewise, the decisions of the Bush administration may have been â€œin the nameâ€ of protection, but that doesnâ€™t mean they are always correct, simply because they were done â€œin that nameâ€.
And the Congressâ€™ kow-towing has been even worse. Whether you agree with the legislation that has been pursued abusing fear of terror as an impetus to stymie dissent is beside the point. Massaging mass fear into the populace in order to keep them submissive and porous for the rest of your agenda is an abuse of power any way you cut it.
Kennedy didnâ€™t exploit the missile crisis in Cuba to scare the American populace in order to pursue civil rights legislation or increase the power of unions. â€œTodayâ€™s Cuban Nuclear Threat Level is Code Orange. Americans should be fearful for their very lives yet stay the course in fighting the Godless Commies that want to kill you. Oh, and I need to pass this transportation bill.â€ Truman tried to take over the steel mills and was shot down- that was in an era where oversight meant something, when our government was still functioning as a democracy of checks and balances. It speaks to the limits of the presidency, and how Congress shouldnâ€™t act as a rubber stamp for the wants of a particular administration, even one that may parallel much of their own agenda, ESPECIALLY during wartime.
Iâ€™m not afraid of terrorists. I AM afraid that I may wake up one day in a democratic dictatorship, rather than a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Iâ€™m more afraid of that than any hypothetical terrorist attack.
As you describe correctly, you have your opinion and I have mine. I respect that. Many, especially those in power, do not, and show this daily through their statements and actions. My concern is, as Edward Murrow said, we must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. My experience, day in and day out for 5 years now has been to endure a barrage of constant slandering, smearing, unwarranted insults from those on the right and those in power. To be called a traitor by those on the right-wing, the party that has control of most of our government, its agenda and its actions, all simply because I hold a different viewpoint, or vocally disagree with the powers that be, or dare to uphold the Constitution unconditionally, or differ in approach to foreign and domestic policyâ€¦thatâ€™s unprecedented in America since Murrowâ€™s time. And itâ€™s horribly disconcerting to be occurring here, in the land of the free. It means those in control may not fully understand what makes America distinct: these inalienable rights.
I have heard many an argument that tries desperately to claim because Iâ€™m vocally and constantly critical of the Bush foreign policy that this is egregious in and of itself; that somehow the terrorists win because I dare to use the very freedom the terrorists supposedly hate. I actually agree with Bush. I think terrorism is bad. I think we should protect ourselves from it. I think civil liberties are important. When he condescends in his press conferences, insisting against an imaginary opposition that we must be vigilant, as though we didnâ€™t agree with him, I still agree we must be vigilant.
But I also think respecting the Constitution and the written law is imperative and non-negotiable. So just because I donâ€™t agree with the WAY Bush is trying to protect us, doesnâ€™t mean I donâ€™t want America protected, doesnâ€™t mean I hate America, doesnâ€™t mean Iâ€™m a commie, doesnâ€™t mean Iâ€™m with the terrorists. This kind of sycophantic accusation has been rampant and concerns me. I can agree with the idea that terrorism is a threat to Americans, yet disagree with the major tenets of how Bush is going about combating that threat without being a traitor. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt might think I was a consummate patriot, as he constantly harped on Woodrow Wilson for his actions in World War I.
Bush apologists regularly try to frame the conversation this dishonest manner. Scott McClellan most recently perpetrated it when, after both Democrats and Republicans voiced disapproval of Bush trying to ignore FISA, that insisting on judicial oversight of the executive branchâ€™s actions was tantamount to Democrats arguing â€œthat we shouldnâ€™t be listening to Al Qaeda communications.â€ Such a statement is absurd. Itâ€™s that kind of bald-faced dishonesty in the forum that makes it impossible to have a coherent discussion with anyone, for the most fundamental elements of the conservative rhetoric is from a foundation of dishonesty.
As far as correlating today with bygone eras- Itâ€™s just sad when the need to justify the actions of todayâ€™s administration canâ€™t be found within is a false analogy with the sole purpose of either stroking the comfort level of supporters or the anger of dissenters. Comparing Bush to Lincoln and the Iraq War to the Civil War is just as false as comparing Bush to Hitler and the Iraq War to World War II. The differences are stark, and any comparison is politically motivated, not analytically. My entire point throughout all of this is that political diatribes such as the ones on this site are perfectly fine, so long as theyâ€™re seen for what they are: politically motivated opinions. They are not articulate, well-reasoned, well-rounded, incontrovertible analysis. And whether you believe me or believe someone else, you are a true patriot if you understand that.Comment Posted By hunkafunk On 13.03.2006 @ 16:37
There isn't much else for me to add; without realizing it, I think barbaram made a good case for me. Our government shouldn't be controlled by those trying to appeal to those who are overwhelmed by such slapdash, disjointed thought processes and bizarrely misplaced paranoia.
God forbid this were to happen. But to put it in perspective, if there had been tragedies similar to 9/11 every single month in the United States for the entire year, you STILL would be more likely to die in a car accident than at the hands of a terrorist. Talk up all the â€˜doomsday scenariosâ€™ and 'dire consequences' you want. You're much more likely to have your 'head chopped off' by a drunk in a Camero than by some terrorist sleeper cell. Do you support a Patriot Act granting the U.S. government right to confiscate your car today without going through the conventional legal channels? Iâ€™d suspect not.
But you shouldnâ€™t be so fearful, right? Especially with Bush keeping us â€œsafeâ€. Or do you have so little faith in Bush's policies that every day after work you must cringe in fear in the fetal position every day while wearing a kevlar suit, sucking your thumb behind bullet proof glass in your bomb shelter three stories underground? I refuse to have my nation's foreign and domestic policy run by people who base their every move on the exploitation of fear to expand the scope and power of the federal government while consolidating their own power within that government. See you at the polls in November!Comment Posted By hunkafunk On 12.03.2006 @ 22:42
â€œThe reason for the defence of G.W. is that SOME peopleâ€™s stock and trade are lies and insults.,doom and gloomers,thumbsuckers, deadenders etc.â€
Iâ€™ll refer you to my original post and description of the above phenomenon: how the right attempts to muddle and obscure by claiming the opposition is guilty of the very thing they are guilty of, integrity and honesty be damned, all in the name of the â€œcauseâ€. I know that those here will accept that what progressives, liberals and Democrats say are â€œlies and insultsâ€, that any analysis that isnâ€™t utopian in favor of the decisions of the Bush administration is â€œdoom and gloomâ€, that those who dare bring up easily preventable policy blunders are â€œthumbsuckersâ€. You donâ€™t have to provide anything other than a wink and a nudge and theyâ€™ll all jump on the bandwagon like groupies backstage at a Motley Crue concert. History is a tougher crowd, the bleating from the herd on this website and others is testament to that. Thereâ€™s a whole lot of wishful thinking, a lot of pseudo-analytical cheerleading, a lot of sycophantic hero worship poorly disguised as intellectual editorializing. Thereâ€™s a lot of empty comparison to epic moments and leadership of Americaâ€™s past, but little content beyond the usual vacant rhetoric that those who agree will gobble up and those who disagree will dismiss as pipedreams of the converted. Thatâ€™s all good and well, but to claim that the content is more, that somehow thereâ€™s cogent thought and incontrovertible dialectics going on here is beyond ludicrous. You can go on hoping the Malkins and Coulters of your mainstream thought will continue to bludgeon honest historicity and sully it with ugly half-truths that fit better with your philosophy, a philosophy that even neocon founding father Francis Fukuyuma has declared dead and a failure. Keep plugging away with your retroactive revisionist rhetoric all the while claiming that, no, itâ€™s the other side that is revisionist, yeah, thatâ€™s the ticket. Iâ€™m sure there will be active little pockets of you in alcoves of the internet like this long after neoconservativism is a relic at the bottom of the garbage bin, whining and moaning daily about what some Democratic Congressman said about this, and what left-wing blogger said about that, and how youâ€™re right and theyâ€™re wrong and how if only the world would just look at what was accomplished instead of being influenced by the knee-jerk propaganda of the â€œliberalâ€ media, everything would be just fine. And youâ€™ll wake up 35 years from now to a better world, but one not of your making but rather the making of your opposition, and so instinctually youâ€™ll consider it evil by nature and work tirelessly to bring it down, talk negatively about it endlessly, and work force its decay from the inside out. Youâ€™ll be miserable. Youâ€™ll be a â€œvictimâ€ in your mind. And youâ€™ll live out your remaining days embittered and fuming, not understanding where things went wrong. I do look forward to seeing you at the polls, buddy. Hopefully your computer screen be calibrated incorrectly, have to wait 7 hours in line to vote, or be forced to use a Diebold machine without a paper trail. Good luck!Comment Posted By hunkafunk On 12.03.2006 @ 16:10
"Reference Post #19 â€“ Start Charging! According to MS Word, it is 1,499 words."
Good idea: charging for free speech. Fits right in with the other neocon ideas I've read on this blog. Besides, how could you trust a product made by Bill Gates, that Leftist jerk who gives twice as much in campaign contributions to Democrats, gave $35,000 to support gun control, $80,000 to fight a rollback in state taxes, donates vast sums money to nutty art museums, millions to improve libraries. The guy's obviously a liberal nutcase. He golfed with Clinton, for God's sake!
"And I would like to apologize â€“ to all the Buffoons of the world. To have me associate â€œhunkâ€ with you is indeed insulting."
Awww, come on. You could have come up with something better than a hack joke rehashed again. At least use a good quote, maybe Groucho Marx:
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."
"You've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it."
But then that would lead you to search for Groucho talking political, and you'd end up with:
"In America you can go on the air and kid the politicians, and the politicians can go on the air and kid the people."
And then wonder what Groucho thought of the two parties in America:
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats."
Wow, this again has been an invigorating exchange of interesting ideas. Good to know the best and brightest of your political kind can only muster a jab at length and an empty insult. Thanks again for unconsciously proving the crux of my posts. I look forward to seeing you at the polls in November!Comment Posted By hunkafunk On 11.03.2006 @ 20:20
Well, glad to see you decided not to delete my post. The best it seems you have come up with is that my post was â€œlongâ€. Next time Iâ€™ll remember to add a few more epithets or nasty generalizations, so you can more easily dismiss my valid criticism as a flame. Itâ€™s simpler that way, isnâ€™t it?
Oh, and the best refutation you could come up with was that I post on Alfrankenweb. Well, so do a lot of conservatives, libertarians and moderates. Which proves my point, you have no valid arguments, and must therefore dismiss any and all contrary arguments based on the biases of your readers. In other words all you could muster was â€œMy readers donâ€™t like this poster, they donâ€™t like this website he posts on, so Iâ€™ll be able to ignore him simply by reminding people of this website my readers donâ€™t like.â€
Here are a few snippets of the above responses, and translations from neocon to English.
â€œHunka funk is a liberal, while claiming not to be a liberal. How clever!â€
Translation: I didnâ€™t actually read what hunkafunk wrote. Or perhaps I did, but I knew that I wouldnâ€™t be able to argue on the issues, so I had to find a way to make him look silly. Even though hunkafunk never claimed not to be a liberal, Iâ€™ll pretend he did. It makes it easier for me. Editorâ€™s note: I stand by my original statement. I am â€œnot your average liberal.â€
â€œWhat a self assured tyrade about historians 100 years from now.â€
Translation: Even though the original post hunkafunk responded to was a self assured tirade, Iâ€™ll pretend it doesnâ€™t matter as long as I agree with it.
â€œWhy is it that Bush must instead be compared to LBJ? Why so certain all of his policies are either insignificant or an outright failure?â€
Translation: Iâ€™m afraid of opinions contrary to my own. Even though those opinions on speculating what hypothetical historians might think 100 years from now are no more or less valid than those of the original post. The difference? I agree with the original post.
â€œHey, Reagan was mentioned without reminding everyone that he wasnâ€™t so smart, and hated gays and blacks and the poor, and the Soviet Union just quit on their own. Thatcher and the Pope had no part either. Riiiight.â€
Translation: Even though hunkafunk was talking specifically of the â€œDragon Slayerâ€ mythos so cherished by the right, Iâ€™ll pretend he said Reagan had NO Part in the USSRâ€™s collapse. Why? Itâ€™s easier than arguing the premise he actually typed.
â€œFrom my perspective, hunkafunkâ€™s post was loaded with insults directed at anyone who subscribes to a mindset other than his own,â€
Translation: Any and all arguments contrary to my point of view are â€œinsultsâ€.
â€œalong with a heavy dose of conceit & condescension With that post as evidence, Iâ€™d have to say this guy is a self-obsessed, elitist jerk with a big bad superiority complex.â€
Translation: My armchair psychology is used as a crutch to avoid actually addressing any of the issues in his post. I could have picked any of them. No really, it was a long post. Stephen King rough draft long. Somebody call Random House, we need an editor with a hacksaw. And since hunkafunk likely has a big ego, all his arguments are moot, because nobody on the right with good points ever has an ego.
â€œHe didnâ€™t â€œtagâ€ Rick at all; he didnâ€™t even offer an original argument.â€
Translation: The argument of the post hunkafunk responded to was so original. I mean, to argue that the political opposition has claimed an administrationâ€™s incompetence throughout their tenure. To argue that time will vindicate the Bush administration. NOBODY has argued that before. What singular ideas.
â€œAll he did was critique the original opinion piece, just like a college professor would.â€
Translation: Those disgusting, filthy liberal professors. How dare they critique? Could somebody please help me Google David Horowitzâ€™ home phone?
â€œAnd he did so by offering his own opinions as fact, which reflects the mindset of most liberals I have met.â€
Translation: An opinionated, confident opposing viewpoint is â€œoffering opinion as factâ€, wherein an opinionated viewpoint that I agree with is just â€œtellinâ€™ it like it isâ€ and â€œcallinâ€™ emâ€™ as they see emâ€™â€.
â€œConservatives have opinions, which are all wrong, but liberals have the truth; thatâ€™s why liberals are always morally superior to conservatives!â€
Translation: Liberals have opinions, which are all wrong, but conservatives have the truth; thatâ€™s why conservatives are morally superior to liberals!
â€œIf the guy wants an honest and serious reply, he should try writing an honest post, free of insults and indicative of an open mind.â€
Translation: The only honest post this liberal scum could present would admit that he is a horrible person that has scatterbrained ideas, is a closet communist, beats his wife, hates America, sleeps with hundreds of men weekly, wants to take all our hard earned money and give it to welfare queens, does reconnaissance for Al Qaeda, doesnâ€™t have one original thought, gets his talking points from Howard Dean, burns the flag every morning, watches Brokeback Mountain in a never-ending loop, thinks heâ€™s superior to all those ignâ€™ant rednecks, wants to confiscate my guns, kills babies in back alley abortions on young teens without parental permission for free. That would be the only honest post we could hope from this idiot.
â€œRe #12, I think hunkafunk told us pretty much what we need to know to evaluate his comment in these brilliant passages:
â€ . . . attempts of mainstream right-wing demagogues . . . right-wing mainstream figures like Michele Menkin, â€¦â€œ
Translation: Again, I have no real arguments, so I must resort to the â€œHe mistyped MALKIN!â€ Since he misspelled one word I can therefore discard his opinion. Except if I agreed with it, in which case such superficial errors are ignored. As Margaret Thatcher once said something along the lines of, â€œI like it when my opponents resort to nitpicking and name-calling. It means they have no valid arguments left.â€ Editorâ€™s note: funny how when I read back my post I knew that the grammar police were going to use that as an excuse to avoid addressing me in real debate. Itâ€™s up on that nasty frankenboard you guys are so afraid of (yet visit, since somebody found me there!)
â€œI find it interesting that I donâ€™t ever recall seeing a conservative critic of Coulterâ€™s writing (and yes hunkafunk, they exist and are rather numerous) bring up her physical appearance. That only seems to be a target of those on the left.â€
Translation: Pointing out somebody has a square jaw is an insult. Why? Because I have to find a way to prove the mythology that those on the left are a bunch of closet chauvinists. This, of course, does nothing to prove that the right isnâ€™t that either, but it sure does make me feel good. Editorâ€™s note: I stand by my statement. Coulter does have a square jaw, it is a fact. May I recommend you peruse the sexy square jawed females here- http://www.womenlargejaw.com/ - then get back to me on any assumptions you might have had.
â€œThe young Republican Party was saddled with an unpopular and expensive civil war, a universally despised president (even by his own cabinet), disaster after disaster in the first 2 years of the conflict and what appeared to be an unwinnable general election.â€â€¦..
Translation: Ignoring completely the entire purpose and point of the post I am purporting to refute, I will continue to attempt to compare the Bush administration to the noble administrations of the past in order to justify the actions of the present. By generalizing that the Civil War and the Iraq War were â€œunpopularâ€, ignoring any sort of historical context, exigent elements, intrinsic circumstances, mitigating factors, or realistic analysis of any sort, I can conflate the two wars as though they were interchangeable. As a result co-opt any and every positive nuance, notable exception or helpful tidbit I find useful and spin it to rehabilitate the damaged goods of the president I must now defend.
Instead of actually delineating the similarities between the administrations that would make such arguments palpable and realistic, I will depend on the fact that 97% of the readers here will take my comparison as a given, nullifying my need to have any relevant facts on my side. Yet in the end, I will fail miserably, because although I lace my post with all sorts of lovely factoids that make it obvious I once scanned a civil war website or two, I have no real content.
â€œWhat a Buffoon!â€
Translation: Only the left insult, so this was just an honest observation of what hunkafunk truly must be.
Iâ€™ve enjoyed my time here. Thank you for unconsciously proving the crux of my original post. Thanks to all. And I look forward to seeing you at the polls in November!Comment Posted By hunkafunk On 10.03.2006 @ 20:33
I Loved this post. Claiming youâ€™re not comparing Bush to Lincoln and Washington, then comparing Bush to Lincoln and Washington. Classic! Itâ€™s also indicative of the mindset that will lead to the inevitable failure of conservativism in America in the 100 years necessary for the historians in your article to look back upon this era.
I stumbled onto your site quite by accident, and I must say itâ€™s very interesting to delve into the writings on this blog. Iâ€™m not your average liberal, tree-humping, tax & spend, gay loving, abortion embracing Air America listening, Hillary obsessing left-wing nutcase, so hear me out. I enjoy reading and debating those with a dynamic array of viewpoints, and I find yours interesting. Incorrect in the end, but interesting nonetheless.
As I was reading, I couldnâ€™t help thinking to myself that an avid left-wing blogger with similar writing ability could easily type an article that held the reverse assertion about Reagan, how in 100 years he would be thought of as a very average or even poor president. It would be a direct refutation of the right-wing bloviaters that insist on elevating Reagan to iconic, Mt. Rushmore status through strategic muddling, selective memory loss, intellectual dishonesty and drooling hero worship. It would be called â€œThe Myth of the Dragon Slayerâ€, in reference to the myth that Reagan and his administration single handedly obliterated the Soviet Union, an idea cherished by sycophantic conservative revisionists but scoffed at by anybody with a contemplative brain.
When you say, â€œThe Presidentâ€™s tormentors have twisted, mangled, and mutilated the truth and the facts so often that the legends they have created are now accepted as reality,â€ you provide few examples, and rightfully so since they donâ€™t exist. For the political derision you see from the Left may not be a symptom of the times, but rather a reaction to warped reverse-reverse psychology of statements like yours above. When those on the Right manipulate and mutilate truth and fact as a fundamental operational code for political action, then calmly accuse those on the Left of using such nefarious techniques themselves while simultaneously absolving themselves of any similarly culpability, itâ€™s difficult for the opposition to maintain standards of decency in debate. Itâ€™s tough to play with sincerity against an opponent that cheats with impunity, then cries foul about perceived cheating.
That aside, Iâ€™m interested in this imaginary historical perspective used to discard present-day critical analysis of the Bush presidency. What Iâ€™m interested in is the â€œhistoriansâ€ you refer to with Orwellian repetition. From what I can surmise, these â€œhistoriansâ€ are some legendary group held in an air-locked antechamber somewhere deep in the earthâ€™s crust, surrounded by molten lava and wily ninjas. As I read onward through your site, it became apparent you were not interested in what historians may consider when examining the events of our era through the prism glass of a hundred years. Instead, it became obvious that you were interested in the systematic and purposeful revision of the very definitions â€˜truthâ€™ and â€˜historyâ€™ as simply ideas relative to oneâ€™s political leanings.
It got me thinking about the attempts of mainstream right-wing demagogues to accomplish this very feat. As though marrying ambition, repetition and ideology, the way our distant relatives will see our history could be influenced. This technique is prevalent today, and disconcerting. It is the unspoken idea that simply because these purveyors of ideology may convene their ideology as history in the present, that future historians just may dare to take seriously the inane ramblings of right-wing mainstream figures like Michele Menkin, the strange woman who tried to justify the internment of innocent Japanese Americans in order to grab national attention, or Ann Coulter, the bizarre square jawed neocon attack dog that has made a desperate plea for the revival of the â€œMcCarthy was rightâ€ demagoguery.
These are the rude partisan toadies that defy logic, reason and truthfulness to either blur coherent analysis or work to rehabilitate lifeless ideologies or viewpoints long declared incorrect. This, of course, is accomplished with gusto and pizzazz, all the while attempting to hide it under the guise of logic, reason and truthfulness. These are the lackeys of the established political machination, the ones that work diligently and tirelessly to â€œrewriteâ€ history in their own time before that â€˜100 yearsâ€™ when it goes to print, so long as what has occurred may not size up with the bizarre utopia dictated by their political leanings. They are the ones ruining the ability of history to be written with a modicum of sincerity and truth, for seeking the truth is secondary to â€œthe causeâ€. The willful destruction of intellectual honesty is not only acceptable, it is an intrinsic element of their vocabulary. It is often the only mechanism they know to accomplish their so-called â€œgoalsâ€. The mechanism for achieving this is nothing less than the purposeful blurring of that which need not be blurred in order to pursue a predestined conclusion based on a failed conservative ideology.
So every opposing party in the history of the United States has claimed incompetence and malfeasance on the part of the ruling party. Wow, what an amazing revelation. Thatâ€™s truly deep. Did you know that the sky is blue and monkeys throw their poop? Shocking, I know! It was a good attempt at obscuring true inquiry into historicity. The entire premise you stipulate is based on a red herring to begin with: that historians will side with present-day critics and find the Bush administration incompetent.
It is not up to historians to bestow a ribbon on either the ruling party or the opposing party; it is not up to historians to say â€œYou were right, they were incompetentâ€ or â€œYou were right, they were not incompetent.â€ True historians donâ€™t do this at all. To claim this is a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of history and those stewards who devote their lives to collating it for the masses.
Itâ€™s likely a purposeful misunderstanding on your part, since as described above there is a movement in mainstream neo-conservativism to commit willful obfuscation of cogent historical analysis if it means a furthering of â€œthe causeâ€ or a consolidation of power that may lead to the promise of â€œthe causeâ€.
Believe me, I understand. The Left has done this in the past to renew interest in its own iconic figures. You must compare Bush, your present horse in the race, to those in Americaâ€™s past with historical virility for the political purpose of providing weight in the present-day to ideological pursuits of which you have a vest interest. But the historians of 2100 will have no such need. Thus, in surmising a place in history for Bush, their presidential comparisons will not be the illustrious presidents past like Lincoln and Washington or even Eisenhower. Their context will not be the presidents whom the problems and complexities of our era would be utterly foreign; to force such comparisons would ignore the duty of context in historical analysis.
Instead, historiansâ€™ basis for comparison will be what they would consider Bushâ€™s contemporaries, or at least those presidents closer to his own era. This means historians will compare Bush to LBJ, not to Lincoln or Washington. They will compare the implementation, philosophy and decisions of LBJ in Vietnam and Bush in Iraq. They will, by default, compare Bushâ€™s domestic policy with LBJâ€™s. Historians will compare Bush to Eisenhower. Not in terms of the potency of criticism endured by both from their opposition, but rather a comparative analysis of Eisenhowerâ€™s warnings about the â€˜military industrial complexâ€™ and the manifestation of such worries during the Bush administrationâ€™s enactment of the Iraq War.
They will compare Bush to Nixon not in reference to whether criticism of the opposition was justified. Historians will not see the inability of Democrats to pursue impeachment or resignation of the former as proof that contemporary criticism of the Bush administration was unfounded. Rather, they will look at the Bush era as a means to dissect the relationship between the legislative, judicial and executive branches in regards to the history of balance of power and oversight in American democracy. It will be a means to compare Nixon and Bush, the difference of governmental function when opposing parties control areas of government with oversight, the danger of having a singular, blindly partisan party controlling all 3 branches of government and how the death of oversight leads to significant breeches in successful democracy.
The Iraq War will not be compared to World War II, as you compare in a paragraph designed to elevate the â€˜War on Terrorâ€™ to the concrete. A hundred years from now, such a politically motivated contextual bait and switch will be superfluous and absurd. Instead, historians in the future will compare the â€˜War on Terrorâ€™ to the only other war on a word in this era: the â€˜War on Drugsâ€™. Despite their obvious differences, as the only two distinct â€˜warsâ€™ of this era that have no legitimate concrete enemy to destroy to signify the wars â€˜endâ€™, historians wonâ€™t be able to ignore the similarities and will often lump them together, and will likely lump together the impotency of any leader that attempted (and inevitably failed) to â€˜winâ€™ those â€˜warsâ€™. Historians will hold in low regard those American leaders that failed to define in concrete terms what â€˜successâ€™ in the war on drugs and the war on terror truly meant, unlike real wars that have discernible ends explicated by the leaders who undertook those wars, like Lincoln and FDR. Real wars with concrete enemies whose destruction signified the â€˜endâ€™ of that â€˜warâ€™, elements devoid in both the war on drugs and the war on terror.
I respect your ingenuity in attempting to convey that youâ€™re not committing the same error in judgment while committing that error in droves. By comparing Bush to the great leaders of Americaâ€™s history, you commit the same foul you accuse partisans on the left of committing in reverse. You bestow greatness in Bushâ€™s presidency while offering no evidence beyond the statement and the faint hope of an historical acquittal of your man. Instead of blindly criticizing from the â€œSigma Six Modelâ€, you are blindly whitewashing the Bush administration by comparing Bush to greatness without bolstering such claims with real content, assuming your core audience will accept that the content exists without actually presenting it.
Nevertheless, I see the historianâ€™s dilemma in dissecting the Bush administration a hundred years from now not a dissertation on the validity of the criticism of present-day peers, but rather an investigation of purpose, action and result. Historians will not see our era through the prism of the perceived incorrect assumptions of Bushâ€™s enemies. Just like all contemporary criticism of those in power have been forgotten in historical context, no matter whether the political leanings of the enemies were Left or Right. Instead, historians will look at the Bush presidency as a string of lofty, idealistic utopian concepts implemented through wrongheaded policy, bad decisions and fallacious philosophy.
Historians in 2100 will not care about the criticism of Bushâ€™s peers. They will care about the end product of Bushâ€™s actions and the direction it pointed our nation as a result. Save a dramatic and sweeping policy that changed America on par with the civil rights movement, superficial gains in economy or minor victories in domestic policy will be swept away with time as they have with all other American presidents that didnâ€™t accomplish truly monumental, earth-shaking feats. Bushâ€™s foreign policy record will only be of interest to historians if and only if the path and philosophy of this policy led to some great achievement in our history down the road. Since â€˜terrorâ€™ can never be eradicated completely, just as drugs can never be eliminated entirely, Bush has by his own definition doomed himself to historical failure. As a result, I am certain Bush will be considered by these historians to be mediocre at best. Thanks for your time!Comment Posted By hunkafunk On 9.03.2006 @ 22:28
Pages (1) :