I’m Overdue for a Right-Wing Rant, So Here Goes: Electoral Advice Fails When It Falls Into “Bush Eats Babies” Syndrome, However Subtly

Today's victim of that syndrome - Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics:

Here's a thought experiment to mull. Take 100 undecided voters and expose them to an hour of clips of George W. Bush talking. How many of them will lean Obama at the end of the hour? More than half, I'm guessing, which is why McCain needs this issue, and George W. Bush, off the front pages as soon as possible. McCain's trajectory to victory has always relied upon Bush falling out of public view. Up until this crisis, Bush seemed happy to oblige the Republican nominee. But this has put Bush front-and-center, which inherently helps Barack Obama.

This logic is wrong, and Mr. Cost has fallen into a trap. The President has done an excellent job hiding himself during this campaign, yielding almost everything to Senator McCain. He is no President Clinton, not by far. There's not much more the President can do for his party.

Mr. Cost admits all this and then argues the best thing is for the issue to go away, and by extension, for the President, um, to never do his job at all.

It's just common "knowledge," after all, that Bush is an idiot. People who are drug dealers and child rapists know they're inherently better than the President, and aren't afraid to say so loudly. I'm not kidding about this - anyone who's been online for more than 5 minutes can't fail to notice just what kind of loser trash thinks itself capable of commenting on anything, let alone the Presidency.

The mistake has been failing to defend the President, and buying into the mainstream conviction that everything he's done is awful and every single thing wrong with the world is his fault. As long as Senator McCain believes that - and he does to a degree, he calls himself a "maverick" after all - he'll never be President. He'll always be buying into a vision of the world that is inherently biased against the use of power in any way, and into a cheap populism where reform is about blaming the rich and oil for everything. That vision of the world allows people whose whole life is Internet forums to call him "senile" and question getting beat to hell for 5 years just to be able to say you didn't betray your country.

Real leadership involves telling the public there are things they don't understand and grossly oversimplify. Real leadership means taking action against scum like terrorists, not reaping the rewards of the War on Terror and then saying you're more moral than everyone else fighting it because you're not fighting.

I'm Ashok Karra, and I approve this message, and very much approve of President Bush.

Addendum: bailout links - Marginal Revolution; Martin Wolf; Bruce Bartlett. I think there's enough in these links to argue any position you choose.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

3 Comments

  • Lance Droy wrote:

    Hey there, sorry I’ve been absent for so long. Life takes over some­times and burnout has kept me away from the intel­lec­tual, but I’m grad­u­ally eas­ing back into the swing of things :P.

    I always feel like the devil’s advo­cate when try­ing to make left-wing argu­ments, but since I seem to be the only ver­bal lib­eral here, ill give argu­ing a try!

    It’s just com­mon “knowl­edge,” after all, that Bush is an idiot. Peo­ple who are drug deal­ers and child rapists know they’re inher­ently bet­ter than the Pres­i­dent, and aren’t afraid to say so loudly. ”

    It always strikes me as odd that child rapists are held as some­how worse than mur­der­ers. Indeed that we {soci­ety} would con­sider a pae­dophile who rapes or abuses a child once, to be more evil than say.…. A kid­nap­per, who keeps a child in soli­tary con­fine­ment for a month until her ran­som, strikes me as a twisted logic. The trauma to the child would be greater in the sec­ond instance. Yet while we would con­sider the kid­nap­per to be ruth­less, the child-abuser is the low­est of the low. Unfor­giv­able (in the eyes of many) and dis­gust­ing blem­ish on society.

    I digress hugely there… but what I’m try­ing to say is that if you con­sider the Iraq war to be unjust then the thou­sands of civil­ian deaths on Iraqi soil rest on the head of the Amer­i­can com­man­der in chief who was , after all, it’s chief insti­ga­tor. If you accept this then a child-rapist or drug dealer is a moral saint by com­par­i­son. Just a thought.…

    The mis­take has been fail­ing to defend the Pres­i­dent, and buy­ing into the main­stream con­vic­tion that every­thing he’s done is awful and every sin­gle thing wrong with the world is his fault.”

    If you accept, as you do, that the “main­stream con­vic­tion” is that George Bush is evil, wouldn’t it be polit­i­cal sui­cide to sup­port him??? After all, do you really think peo­ple could be per­suaded that he’s really a sav­iour? In time for the election?

    Real lead­er­ship involves telling the pub­lic there are things they don’t under­stand and grossly over­sim­plify.” Who wants to be told that they are igno­rant? Isn’t it that kind of atti­tude that leads to the policy-free char­ac­ter debates that seem to be dom­i­nat­ing this elec­tion? I heard a vox-pop (street sur­vey) in an Amer­i­can city, in which 4 mid­dle aged women were asked what they thought of Sarah Palim, to which they answered “I think she is a hard work­ing woman with fam­ily val­ues and I like her”. They were then asked “what poli­cies do you like of hers”, to which they all replied that they didn’t know of any of her poli­cies, but they were sure she agreed with them. Being the work­ing mother that she is.

    Just some thoughts :P. The blog is look­ing great!

  • I will grant that Bush has done a very good job of hid­ing out for this elec­tion. The down­side to that was his slow response on this finan­cial mess.

    I’d not char­ac­ter­ize Bush as an idiot, but he has shown a com­plete lack of intel­lec­tual curios­ity. He didn’t know things, and didn’t care enough to dig a lit­tle for answers. To Lance, on the rapist vs. mur­derer issue, I’d point out that it’s a level of out­rage issue, rather than actual dam­age. A mur­der leaves a body and pos­si­bly a bereaved fam­ily. A rape leaves a live vic­tim who can con­tinue to suf­fer where we can see them, pos­si­bly with the bonus of an emo­tional fam­ily. Throw in your kid­nap­ping exam­ple, and that one (if we get the kid back safely) just ends happy in the pub­lic eye. The kid might be badly dam­aged, but we’ve stopped car­ing by then.

    Mov­ing along, the prob­lem with try­ing to defend the Pres­i­dent is that he has con­sis­tently shown a fairly strong dis­like of (and con­se­quent dis­re­spect for) the Con­sti­tu­tion. If he sim­ply man­aged badly, or even started the Iraq War with no real evi­dence, or WAS an idiot, I could see defend­ing him. Unfor­tu­nately, he has com­bined that with a major assault on sci­ence, abuses of power, and an incred­i­bly secre­tive admin­is­tra­tion that looks like it’s try­ing to strip away our civil rights. Lance makes, I think, the appro­pri­ate point here; that Pres­i­dent Bush is cur­rently con­sid­ered bad by the gen­eral pub­lic, and thus try­ing to do any­thing other than run from him at this point would likely just be suicide.

    All that being said, I think I should point out that Bush seems to be actu­ally turn­ing things around on a num­ber of fronts (but espe­cially for­eign pol­icy) in the last year. Which leads me to the War on Ter­ror point (which is a name that has always both­ered me). We need to take out groups like Al Qaeda, yes. But we need to do it in an intel­li­gent fash­ion. Invad­ing Afghanistan: good. Invad­ing Iraq: vaguely incom­pre­hen­si­ble. We need to invest in build­ing strong alliances, rather than hav­ing a go-it-alone mind­set. We need to do a “hearts and minds” cam­paign, as Petraeus has done in Iraq. Peo­ple don’t become ter­ror­ists for the cash bonuses, but because their lives suck, and some­one who has twisted a Holy Book (really, it could be any, but we’ll use the Koran for this instance) tells them it’s all the West’s fault, but mostly America’s. We need to start using a law-enforcement approach to deal­ing with ter­ror­ists. One rea­son suicide-bombing is so pop­u­lar is that it makes you a mar­tyr, and peo­ple carry signs with your pic­ture around. These same peo­ple swiftly for­get about the guy in a blaze-orange jump­suit being frog-marched through a courtroom.

    Finally, to Lance on the topic of Sarah Palin: She is the sin­gle biggest rea­son I have not to vote for McCain. For McCain to make his cam­paign be “EXPERIENCE” and then pick the least expe­ri­enced per­son avail­able is per­plex­ing to me. Also, her poli­cies scare me. Espe­cially things like com­bin­ing “No Abor­tions” with “Absti­nence Only Sex-Ed,” which is a great for­mula to cre­ate a lot of teen moth­ers who will mostly never go any­where with their lives.

    I seem to have gone on for a bit, so I’ll go away now.

  • […] Read more: I’m Over­due for a Right-Wing Rant, So Here Goes: Elec­toral Advice Fails When It Falls Into “Bush… […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv Enabled