Bush's Good, Attractive and/or Appealing Qualities

[MithLuin]

*really hopes that comment was aimed at Griffy*

*decides she doesn't want to know, actually*

[in reference to the Faramonster and his whipped-cream, if you must know.]

Bush is not a fascist. We are not living in a totalitarian regime. The catchphrase 'war on terror' is not being used to subtly remove our civil liberties and make us all thralls. The movies Revenge of the Sith and V for Vendetta were not cautionary tales to the American people warning them of the dangers of their evil leader. Bush does not have the One Ring on his finger


It can be taken too far. People always forget that the president of the US doesn't have nearly as much power as everyone seems to think he does. Regardless of who was President, 9/11 was going to lead to changes in security at airports. Period. That's just the way life works. Only an increasing price of oil turns Americans off to driving SUVs. Etc.


In all honesty, if you want to know why people voted for Bush, this is the last place to ask that question. Well, not the last place, but still a foolish one. As far as I know, I am the only one here who voted for him and is comfortable with my decision to do so. I respectfully acknowledge that no one has pounced on me for doing so, and that has to count for something. People here can be very polite [even if it is tough on their poor tongues! ]. The first election was pre-9/11; I had no way of knowing that I was electing a president based on how he would deal with Al Quaeda. None of us did. That's the whole point - you elect someone based on your best guess of what the important issues will be. I am sure many people voted for Bush for reasons that never really panned out or materialized. But the same would have been true if his opponents had won. One of the reasons Clinton ran is that most other suitable Democratic candidates were leary of challenging the (apparently popular) Bush Sr. for his job. I'm sure some of these people were kicking themselves for declining to run after his ratings plummeted. But that's life. We'll never know what their presidency would have been like.


If this thread is meant as an analysis of what Bush did "right" (politically-speaking), then it can be applied to what the Democrats need to do in 2 years to take the White House. I think such things can be discussed reasonably, as tactics and strategies, without painiting anyone as a monster. It is also disingenious (has that word been used on this thread yet? I like it!) to suggest that the only reason people cast their votes is that they are manipulated into doing so. Certainly, there is plenty of spin and manipulation going on. But that isn't the whole story. No amount of spin is going to make nel vote for a candidate who has made racist remarks in public, regardless of his platform. (At least, I think that is true - I'll let her clarify if I'm putting words in her mouth.) In other words, you can fool some of the people some of the time....but you can't fool everyone.


I do not approve of all of Bush's policies. But neither do I disapprove. He has done what I expected him to do (more or less) when I tried to help elect him the second time. (I should clarify further that my state is not red; so don't worry, my vote did not help elect him at all.) He did not abandon Iraq by prematurely pulling out and leaving the place in ruins. A start. I was very distrustful of what Kerry would have done in his place. Seeing as how my sister's boyfriend didn't make it back from Iraq until spring of '06, this issue was not theoretical to me, but very personal. But his friends died over there, and I wanted them to have accomplished something with their sacrifices.

I am a teacher, a secondary science teacher, to be more precise. NCLB means that I was not able to be hired by my local public school system, because I am not yet certified (I will be in May). Again, this affects me personally, but I didn't mind - I think it is only right that teachers are required to know what they are doing, and encouraging would-be teachers to go through a certification program is very worthwhile. I got a job at a non-public school, and life is good. Also, it means that more schools in my state are moving to a physics-first curriculum, to allow biology to be taught (and tested) in the 10th grade. Teachers involved in these programs assure me that they are very good, and that it is helpful to the kids to introduce them to science this way. I am sceptical, because I don't think they're ready for real physics yet, but I don't see it as a bad thing. In short, NCLB has its drawbacks (and the definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and failing schools is one of them). But I think that the legal basis for such things is slim, and it will fall apart before 2012 when it would really kick in. Regardless, Bush won't be president then But NCLB has its positive side, too. It seeks to prevent the marginalization of students, and as such, is aligned with the right to a "free and appropriate public education" that all students are guaranteed legally.

And he has appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices.

So, no, he's not a genius, and no he's not our best president ever. I'm not in love with him. But I do think he has done a reasonably good job as president. Invading Iraq was stupid, yes. He underestimated the task, just as Clinton underestimated the resistence in Kosovo [though Clinton was wise enough not to involve ground troops...]. Americans apparently think superior force means we automatically win, without even fighting, or something. Overwhelming force does work, but your opponent doesn't necessarily give up...they just find a sneakier way to fight you. Hopefully, we get that now. Anyway - I understood why we invaded Afghanistan, and felt that as lousy as war is, we at least were getting rid of the Taliban. And, well, Al Quaeda did attack us, so it was...understandable. (There is a difference between understanding and approving, of course) Iraq, not so much. We could have found a way to stop buying their oil, and that would have had a very dramatic effect on, well, the world. There had to be other ways to resolve that conflict and oust Saddam. There had to be...

3000 soldiers are dead. This is not something to be ignored, or to take lightly. In Baltimore City, in 2006, there were 275 murders. In 2005, it was 269. 278 murders in 2004. 271 in 2003. When the War in Iraq started, I tracked the homicide rate in the city and the death toll of coalition forces in Iraq in our local paper. They were about the same. Baltimore is roughly the same size as Baghdad, IIRC. Obviously, the death toll for the war eventually increased. The mayor of Baltimore was just elected governor of the state of Maryland. Apparently...the death toll here wasn't blamed on him.

There are lots of ways people die, and there are lots of ways the government is involved. I think there is too much evil in the world to focus on it all at once, but I find that when people find something horrifying, their immediate reaction is "why doesn't anyone care about this? Why aren't they doing anything about it?" It may be that everyone is focusing on another dilemma. It would be...foolish...to assume that focussing on one dilemma over another means we are all blind and callous. It would be more realistic to say that we all evaluate the same information in different ways.

Not all of us think that what Bush has done makes him a horrible, unspeakable monster. Likewise, not everyone who voted for him is pleased by his choices and decisions. I am truly sorry that some people are so dissatisfied with him that they'd rather not be an American. I am sure some people are truly sorry that I am so jaded and cynical about politics at such a young age. That's...just the way things are.


My politics can be summed up as, "Come, Lord Jesus!" or, alternatively, "nuke DC."


Cross-posted with Lord M and an entire page of other people, including, but not limited to, V, Griffy and the Watcher

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There, now the thread title has something for everyone.

I do think that this discussion has been valuable, and can continue to be valuable, though uncomfortable, particularly given the heightened concern about the war given the developments over the past week. However, I continue to believe that that makes the subject more relevant (though more uncomfortable) rather then less.

Griffy, I agree with you, but only up to a point. I think that you make an excellent point that people who are starving to death or dying of disease in Africa are not the least bit concerned about Bush, Iraq, or oil. I agree that statesments like "the whole world groans" are overly hyperbolic, and like the Hitler comparison tend to stifle rather then promote reasonable discussion. However, I do believe that Bush's actions have ramifications that reverberate far beyond the borders of the United States (or Iraq). And from an American-centric point of view (I am, after all, an American) one of the things that distresses me the most of the actions of the Bush administration is that they seem to have caused the United States to be held in great contempt by much of the rest of the world. Perhaps it is I that is now engaging in hyberbole, but that is my perception, and I fear that that damage will take a long time to undo.

[yovargas]

Faramond's point is not that he thinks Bush has these qualities - but the fact that a lot of other people are insisting that he simply, absolutely cannot.

More accurately is that a few (uh, two, I think) have said that they personally find his good qualities irrelevant because of the weight of his bad ones. That's very different from saying "Bush has no good qualities and you're a fool for thinking he does".

Good post, Mith, thanks for making it. I'll admit that outside of the "war on terror" related stuff I am both fairly ignorant and fairly indifferent towards Bush. Well, his religious right stuff pisses me off...

[The Watcher]

For the record, I get very angry about war too, and I do not agree with Bush's policies. In fact, I'd say I agree with most of the "no Bush" people in this thread. I don't think any human has made me so frequenty, and on such a continuous basis, angry like Bush has.

Consensus grows that Bush wasn't A Good Thing, and rightfully it grows.

That said, statements like "the whole world groans" will get me annoyed no matter who makes them, and about what. The only things the "whole world" do or care about is basic things like oxygen and eating. Apart from referring to things that, you're probably going to use the phrase in a way that does not apply if you're lining it up.

And that is the point I'm trying to get accross - when people generalize, or get carried away with popular opinion or whatnot ... such opinion run the risk of not being of much use in itself, because the world doesn't work with brushstrokes that broad. Which is something world leaders like Bush et all are finding out on a continuous basis

EDIT: Frelga - I think it is possible to point out the possible existence of an "echo chamber" without having any "good/appealing" qualities thoughts about Bush. The way I understand what he wrote, Faramond's point is not that he thinks Bush has these qualities - but the fact that a lot of other people are insisting that he simply, absolutely cannot. I believe it is possible to hold this viewpoint irrespective of one's beliefs - see my point above about broad brushstrokes!

Griffon, I vowed I would not respond again to your attack, but, I do find it puzzling. All I did was comment on Faramond's "echo chamber" comment.

You, on the other hand, have accused me of far worse. What did I say that caused you to go ballistic? I have read over MY posts, and I do not see it. My posts are in no way some sort of blank slate agreement with anyone else's here, and I find that I do indeed resent such a comparison.



When I said that the rest of the world could not understand an American viewpoint, how is that insulting? Do I claim to have an Aussie viewpoint, or a UK viewpoint, or a South African one?

What OTHER posters here have stated are their statements. Please do not lump me into any vitriol over your perceived common consensus. After all, isn't this JUST what this thread was designed to address?

[Griffon64]

yov - which post are you referring to? If the one about the Iraq war and the heap of blame, why yes, I for one agree mostly with what you are saying.

BUT: I think it is dangerous to say that any act completely overrides any other possible acts. Why? Because people make mistakes. And because people are redeemable. We read books and watch movies with redemption as a theme, and we enjoy them and call them good movies ( at least I do ). To me, it is very important that the concept of forgiveness, atonement and redemption is honoured in the world. The most painful and harmful divisive lines in the modern world is drawn along hard lines of unforgiveness and righteousness at any cost. I am simply opposed to any way of thought that threatens to create more, because I think the world has enough of those.

PS: You're a world of awesome even if I don't always agree with you

[yovargas]

I'll agree with that post, Griffy, and since I have a hard time forgiving Bush myself, I'll try to live by it more as well (and I'll also gratefully accept that hug ).

[Griffon64]

Eeep - so much to do! ( and a brand new iMac is sitting next to me waiting for me to drool over and it isn't even mine )

The Watcher - I have to apologize for causing you distress! And I have to hasten to add that I wasn't blowing all that hot air over your post and your post alone. Here's a quick synopsis of what happened:

1. Griff steams on "slow cook" about a feeling that is quite common in those parts of the rest of the world that know about America ( or at least, those parts of it that she's been in and talked to people in, IE mostly South Africa, but I read media from other parts of the world too! ). This feeling is "America is a bully." Sorry guys, but there it is. I don't always hold this feeling, but it is like sitting on a water bed with a big elephant. Every time the elephant shifts its weight, the whole thing wobbles and maybe your house of cards you've been building falls down ... ya know? You can do nothing about the elephant, though. You're both in it together, but the elephant is not going to care about you. It is too big, and it is concerned about itself.

This, by the way, goes on for years - I think it was in 1991 that I first realized America is not automatically good, a view I held as a little kid.

2. Griff reads this thread and holds her peace even when it seems to her that some opinions being aired tend to disregard the fact that the rest of the world exists.

3. The Watcher makes what is overall a good post, but unfortunately things have been building up to breaking point for poor Griff, and the resulting explosion is not pretty, but was needed to prevent some sort of mental or physical systems failure!

Yes, you are right, the rest of the world do not understand the American viewpoint. And of course, neither of us can claim to know about any viewpoint other than that that we personally experience and hold.

When first I read your statement, I felt talked down to and as if you were condescending ( which I know you did not mean ) and I grabbed the keyboard and tapped away when maybe I should have taken a deep breath. It was just the wrong thing at the wrong time - it fed into the feeling that I personally sometimes have, which is that America talks down to the world at large. I apologize, again.

All that said, though - the world really wants to understand the American viewpoint, by and large. You are the elephant on the waterbed, we want to understand how you think, so we can see what we can do to keep the shaking to a minimum, ya know

[Túrin Turambar]

So for people who don't like the echo chamber - what ARE Bush's good, attractive and/or appealing qualities?

We listed them on the first three pages of the thread, as I stated above.

[baby tuckoo]

Bush is not a fascist.

Nor did I call him one. I sought only to illustrate one of the qualities reasonable people use to evaluate a leader. The coincidence of that quality existing in a democratically elected President or a post-WWI fascist or a hero of the Gallic Wars is just that. My introduction of the "F" word was simply to demonstrate that there are traditional ways of appealing to the public viscera.


Mith, perhaps we could discuss NCLB on a different thread? I have a thought or two.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I would be interested in seeing such a thread (though I would not have much to say in it).

[Primula Baggins]

I would be interested as well.

Mr. Prim's brother teaches high school science as well, Mith, and we had some interesting talks over the holidays.

[Cerin]

I would have everybody reading this post know that I wanted to respond to Cerin's "the whole world groans" bollocks by saying that that is a sweeping generalization, typical of the arrogance Americans exhibit. Do you know, I doubt that 40% ( or the arbitrary percentage of your choice ) of Africa gives a hoot about Bush, or groan under his policies.

My statement was not a sweeping generalization, nor was it born of some arrogant assumption that we are more important than we actually are. There are poor in Africa and all over the world, for example, who have lost the benefits of family planning and pre-natal services because this President insists on dictating what doctors in other countries may tell their patients. I do believe the world is collectively groaning, in one way or another, under this administration's policies, whether or not its individual citizens are familiar with them or their source. We are all connected in this day and age of global politics and economics, and as John Dunne observed, every man's death diminishes me.

On the other hand, I think your characterization of other people's deeply held, conscientiously arrived at and informed convictions as 'flavor of the month' and being 'carried away by popular opinion' is extremely arrogant and insulting. Who, for example, has insulted Faramond by dismissing his views and insulting the basis of his convictions just because they disagreed with him?

PS: Noticable that Faramond, who tried to adhere to V's original request not to Bush-bash, is one of the posters that gets bludgeoned in this thead.

No one bludgeoned Faramond (i.e., criticized him personally or questioned the legitimacy of his views -- as you have done with others), unless you consider disagreeing with a person's opinion to be bludgeoning.

but the fact that a lot of other people are insisting that he simply, absolutely cannot.

Unless I missed it, I didn't see anyone insist that Bush cannot have good qualities. What has been said is that whatever his good qualities personally or as President, they are insignificant when weighed against the damage he has done.