Bush Then and Now
Following the Swift Boat assault on the character of John Kerry, we are now seeing a tit-for-tat expose of the early years of George W. Bush. Like most Democrats, my first reaction is a delicious tingle of anticipation and sangfroid. If the slime is going to fly, it couldn’t find a better target. But when I actually look at the charges and the unseemly glee expressed in their exposure, I have to wonder – is this really the best tactic? Dems will never be as good at evil as Karl Rove and company, and this stuff really seems too little and too late. Moreover, it’s by no means clear what kind of damage it could inflict even if the blow lands flush on Bush’s soft underbelly.
The picture that’s emerging from the stories of his adventures in the National Guard, on the Alabama campaign trail, and assorted exploits with ambitious secretaries, is, to be sure, not the portrait of someone who has followed a lifelong dedication to public service. Instead, the young Bush comes across as an irresponsible child of privilege, concerned primarily with his own pleasure and comfort. His primary fault is selfishness, or perhaps indifference to the effect of his actions on others. This is not a noble quality, but neither is it notably evil. I think, at heart, most people can relate to failings of this nature, especially at an age characterized by irresponsibility and self-absorption.
Some may express outrage that young George Bush was not made to pay the penalty for those activities that put him on the wrong side of the law. The sad fact is, that’s typical, then and now. Bush got the treatment that any well-connected white rich kid would get, and there’s a certain inconsistency in singling him out for special criticism just because he happened to grow up to be President. People who have a problem with how Bush skipped out on the Guard or sniffed coke off every available horizontal surface or whatever have a problem with the fundamental class system in America, not a single unexceptional individual who took the liberties he considered to be available to him. Not everyone made their careers by sending people to jail or to war for doing the same things they did as kids, but that’s a separate issue.
The other problem with etching a portrait of young George Bush in venom is that it doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know. Bush’s signal failing as a young man was lack of seriousness and a tendency toward the path of least resistance. If that’s your argument, you don’t need to go back thirty years to find ample evidence of these qualities in his current-day character. There are plenty of relevant examples in the here-and-now that affect the well-being and safety of the country, and can be documented by policy promises and outcomes that are a matter of official public record.
Even if you stipulate to the worst assumptions about Bush’s activities in his youth, you still have to allow that a man can change. Prince Hal became Henry V and all that, right? So what that our most celebrated leaders demonstrated a certain civic spirit even in their misspent youths (e.g., Churchill, FDR and JFK, all spoiled scions of aristocracy, nevertheless managed meaningful accomplishments in the midst of youthful irresponsibility)? Bush claims to have effected a personal transformation, and in any case, has been faced with events during his presidency which can’t help but drive home some sense of purpose. He affects a posture of leadership whose appeal is beyond empirical dispute: those who see it, see it and it’s hard to see how they can be convinced otherwise by dredging up evidence from years’ past, which the GOP propaganda machine will make sure to dispute even if it’s clearly true. While it’s nice, I guess, for the Bush haters to see their worst suspicions discussed and documented in the national media, true believers will always see what they want, and I’m not sure there are enough people in the middle to make a difference.
I suppose from a tactical perspective it may be better to have Bush answering questions about his National Guard service and other bothersome issues instead of scaring the bejesus out of everyone by painting a Bin Laden beard on John Kerry. It’s certainly preferable to having Kerry defend his own exceptionally heroic actions when it’s clear that even at best, Bush chose the easiest path available to him and considers this both sufficient and equivalent to Kerry’s actions.
But really, can’t we cut this shit out? Kerry should absolutely go after Bush, but it should be on today’s issues. Where are the “bring it on” commercials, the spots comparing Bush’s promises to his meager record, the “Mission Accomplished” banner contrasted with mounting war casualties? Bush knows that he needs to slime Kerry to have any chance at winning with his record, but Kerry doesn’t need people to think Bush is a bad man, just a bad President.
2:11:42 PM 
|
|
