President George W. Bush: The Polarization President?

The battle for the nomination of the Democratic Party continues to dominate the airwaves. Senators’ Clinton and Obama are beginning to make more strident attacks on one another. Ideologues on the left are starting to cannibalize their own littermates. Hillary Clinton has received the brunt of many of these verbal assaults. It seems that this party is beginning to come to terms with just how far to the left the power brokers controlling the party philosophy have drifted. Realistically, one has to wonder if either Clinton or Obama will pay the price this November. Time will tell and much can transpire on the international and domestic theaters before the general election. Expectedly, both of the democratic candidates are now attempting to place their view of President Bush’s legacy around John McCain’s neck. Intelligent as they seem to be, I find Clinton’s and Obama’s attempt to marginalize the campaign of Senator McCain somewhat humorous. After all, legacies are written in an historical context and if I’m not mistaken, we are currently living in the here and now. Why does the Democratic Party and many of its followers so despise President Bush? Do they merely suffer from what some have labeled the “Bush Derangement Syndrome?” Has this polarization within the United States developed over a long period of time or, is it a creation of both political parties and the media?

The Democratic Party and its followers have despised George W. Bush since the election of 2000. After all, if we believe their diatribe, “Bush stole the election!” Is this the case? No, he did not and the answer is beyond reproof. Like him or not, George Bush won the election. If you don’t believe me, read Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. If you don’t like the Constitution then amend it. Al Gore won 48.4% to Bush’s 47.9% of the popular vote. Bush won 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266. Bush carried 30 states while Gore took 20 states and the District of Columbia. Those on the left who think that they represent the political philosophy of the country at large would do well to study the election 2000 map at www.en.wikipedia.or/wiki/United States presidential election 2000. Vice-President Gore won the West Coast, the upper Midwest and, the Northeast. George Bush won the entire swath of the country which many liberals have condescending called “fly over country.” The events surrounding the election of 2000 were not precedent setting. The presidential elections of 1824, 1876 and, 1888 were also settled by the Electoral College. Thus, for many on the left, began the hatred for President Bush.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 changed the direction of the Bush Administration. Suddenly, the executive branch was forced to deal militarily with the terrorist threat. Many liberals refuse to accept the reality of these attacks. Osama Bin Laden didn’t wake up on the 10th of September and say, “Golly, lets attack America!” Islamic fundamentalism has been simmering in the Middle East since Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran in the late ‘70s. Republican and Democrat administrations made minimal efforts to squelch this fire. After all, we are a super power, who would dare attack us? All one can say is, “So much for the superiority of arms against a deep rooted hateful ideology.” Since the attacks on 9/11, we have been militarily active in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seemingly, everyone supports our activities in Afghanistan while the country is evenly divided over Iraq. Those of us who fail to connect our activities in Iraq within the context of our overall struggle against Islamic fundamentalism are suffering from myopia. Many of those opposing our efforts in Iraq state that, “Bush lied!” Many go on to spout such invectives as, “This is an unauthorized and illegal war.” Of course, all of this reckless banter is merely a bunch of uneducated and uninformed hyperbole. Are we in a hotbed in Iraq? You bet but, what good does it do to become ensnared in a mindless game of, “he said – she said?” I have no problem with anyone if they oppose the war in Iraq unless they play the “Bush lied” game. United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 authorized the use of force to remove Sadam Hussein. Some will ask, “What about the WMDs?” I don’t know where they are either however; I worked in Northern Iraq in 1991 and I saw firsthand the effects that Sadam’s use of chemical weapons had on the Kurdish population. When all is said and done, I will not convince anyone who plays the “Bush lied” mantra of their mental error. Others like to label President Bush an idiot. If you ask them why, they will make jokes regarding his less than stellar ability to speak publicly. If you delve further, and try to get those who say this to back up their assertions with psychological data connecting verbal skills to intelligence level in human beings you will more than likely receive either a blank stare or a flustered reassertion of their childish personal insult. These people should read some of the biographies covering the life of our third president. All of these biographies clearly show Thomas Jefferson to have been a poor speaker. Some have stated that these poor verbal skills led to his being assigned to the drafting committee for our Declaration of Independence. Jefferson never delivered an oral State of the Union Address to Congress; he simply sent them a written copy. Now, I am not comparing President George W. Bush to President Thomas Jefferson but; I challenge anyone labeling Bush an idiot simply due to his poor speaking ability to make the same assertion regarding Jefferson’s capabilities as president. Can this “Bush lied” or “Bush is an idiot” philosophy be connected to any other social context? I believe it can.

Our country became enthralled with a sort of laissez-faire attitude during the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. Many of us were comfortable with a sort of “if it feels good, do it” mentality. After all, the economy was humming along and everyone was just having a good time. Personally, I believe that many liberals saw his presidency as the realization of the social philosophies grown out of the “flower power” generation. Narcissism became accepted. Scandal after scandal rocked the White House but the Clintons' fought back by claiming to be victims of a vast right wing conspiracy. In my view, the issue was never whether President Clinton had sex with an intern or Hillary’s commodities market profits. I had and continue to have problems with their parsing of words in the English language. Agree with him or not, George W. Bush believes that all of your personal actions have moral and ethical consequences and I’m not sure if Bill and Hillary Clinton are overly concerned with these issues. Are people uncomfortable with looking at themselves in a mirror and conducting some self analysis of their character? Let’s look at a few important definitions of words in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1. Character: The complex of mental and ethical traits making and often individualizing a person, group, or nation.
2. Ethos: The distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution.
3. Ethics: The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.
4. Embellishing: To heighten the attractiveness of by adding decorative or fanciful details.
5. Lie: To make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.

Some of you might be wondering by now where I am going with all of this. It is my contention that these words are important definitions of who you are as an adult human being. The Clinton’s actions over the years, in my opinion, have exposed serious flaws in their personal character. President Clinton should never have been dragged through the mud by Congress over the Monica Lewinsky debacle however; statements made by him while under oath such as, “It depends on what the definition of is, is.”, offer us an insight into his ethical belief system. Now, his wife wants the presidency. She has become embroiled in a controversial story describing her supposedly harrowing landing at the Tuzla airfield in Bosnia. That was a long sentence which can best be shortened by simply stating, “She has gotten caught making a bold faced lie.” This is not a new aspect of her personality. Supposedly, she was named “Hillary” in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary. Unfortunately for her, this is doubtful since he had not conquered the heights of Mt. Everest until after her birth. According to her, she first became personally exposed to racial hatred while playing on a girls’ soccer team in Junior High. Guess what? There was no soccer team for boys or girls while she was there. She has stated that she learned how to successfully trade commodities futures by reading the Wall Street Journal. Once again, this is a distortion of the truth. The Wall Street Journal was not publishing statistics for the commodities market when she made her exorbitant profits with beef futures. We were led to believe that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks on 9/11. Oh yes, I forgot, Chelsea retracted her mother’s misquote at a later date. Last but not least, the recently released White House records from the 1990s show her to have been a solid First Lady and not a President. So much for the validity regarding her “experience” claims. I believe it is not hard to begin to see a well developed pattern of personal behavior.

Democrats, Independents and, Liberals who despise President Bush would do well to remember that he is not running for reelection this November. You have the right to dislike him all you want however; I believe that you have an obligation to rise above the level of schoolyard insults and support your opposition to him with facts and not heated rhetoric. While you are doing that, I encourage you to hold other politicians accountable for their actions. For me, it is quite simple. The Clintons’ resemble a character in Clint Eastwood’s film, “The Outlaw Josey Wales.” If you have seen the film, you will undoubtedly remember the snake oil salesman in the white suit. Like him, the Clintons’ will say almost anything to get you to buy their product. As for myself, I’m not parting with my hard earned dollar or my vote. Their era is past and it is high time that we start a new chapter on the political scene.

De Oppresso Liber