by geezer in Paris
Wed Dec 27th, 2006 at 04:37:22 AM EST
Could it happen here?
from the diaries, with small format edit. -- Jérôme.
This is an updated version of an old post of mine from KOS, that I reread today. It's still an important question, --and flamebait. Still, here it is, for those who want to take a swing. Better forum here. perhaps I will get some real thought- though there were some good responses on KOS when I first opened this door.
No matter how he was elected, G.W. Bush was for years a very popular president by a ratio of better than two to one. Reflecting us, (and their bottom line), the media uncritically slurped up his pronouncements, and passed them on to us,---because we liked it. We were somehow satisfied.
He was dealing in near-complete reality morphing, and there was plenty of evidence to support that fact, even early on in his first term but, for years, we loved it. And him.
It is important, perhaps vital to arrive at some understanding as to who Bush really is and why we allowed him such a blank check- and do it soon. Perhaps the next two years of acrimony and subpoenas will help. But here we need to do it without vitriol, without venting rage. There are other times and places for that. Like in front of the White House, with burning tires and good, strong signs. Daily.
But we must realize that it will do little good to get rid of him, -even impeach him- if the internal desires that put him in place, and have kept him there- the popular needs that he fulfilled- remain uninspected, hidden.
Because another leader like him will likely be installed in a few years.
And lest we be tempted to take refuge in the illusion that he is an isolated case, it seems to me that he's another Reagan, folks, but without the professional sweetness that Ron could turn on so effectively at will. Remember, Ronnie was the guy who doubled a national debt in four years that had taken over two centuries to create---and we reelected him! We loved him, and his 4 by 5 memory cards, his naps during cabinet meetings and daily intel briefings. We chose to ignore those dear little popup mines- designed to cut the legs off of children attending the new rural schools that the evil Daniel Ortega was building- and his psychopathic dingbat Oliver North. John Poindexter still runs free, you know.
Reagan was about as competent in the last half of his administration as Dubya is now. And still, we loved them, we turned a blind eye to an array of evil almost beyond description. And still the Dems appear poised to escape from their duty into the Sea of Expediency, for a pleasant cruise, to last till '08.
Why is that, fellow citizens? What is there about THEM?
Is Dubya primarily a puppet, just competent enough to shmooze and pander?
Is he a sincere man desperately out of his depth, driven to prayer and deductive doctrinal thinking by his lack of the mental horsepower to cope with the job?
Is he a superficial bullshitter who has as his only talent the ability to don a patriarchal, patronizing face and flimflam that rather large body of citizens who want someone to tell them how to think, how to label the world?
Is he a borderline religious zealot who, when it suits him, takes his direction from God- provided God agrees?
Is he a born-again Neocon, acting as the front man for a delusional dream of empire flogged by Cheny and Rumsfeld?
Is he just another Machiavellian pol whose real objective all along has been to steal Arab oil for the coming peak oil crisis, and appease Israel and squash the Iranian oil-euro bourse at the same time?
Could it be that he is the ideal guilt displacement object- the man who acts, and then trots out the excuses for the slimy things that we are tempted to revel in but dare not admit to ourselves- atavistic urges that leak out of the dark side of our nature, that conflict with the kinder, more rational side of who we are?
Whatever the truth here, we got what we wanted.
So-- what, exactly, was that?