It’s rare when one article can capture another person’s sentiment so perfectly that one finds himself nodding almost uncontrollably while reading it. The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait has written just such an article.
It’s called, “The Case for Bush Hatred.”
If the headline isn’t enough, consider Chait’s first paragraph.
“I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I’m tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism — ‘I inherited half my father’s friends and all his enemies’ — conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school — the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks — shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks — blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing — a way to establish one’s social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.”
Of course, this isn’t just a lengthy tirade about how much Chait hates Bush. The point of the article isn’t just a slam-job (although that is a charming side benefit); it’s an analysis of why so many people have grown to detest Bush.
I should note that Chait is not some radical lefty. By any reasonable measure, he’s a pretty moderate Dem. Chait endorsed the war in Iraq, believes strongly in free trade, and appears to be enthusiastically backing Wesley Clark’s campaign.
In fact, Chait expresses little use for the “fringe” Bush haters — such as those who compare to Bush to Hitler — whom he accuses of “lurid conspiracy-mongering.”
Nevertheless, Chait sees Bush, his record as president, and his administration’s agenda and concludes one thing: it would be “mystifying” if we didn’t hate Bush.
Chait offers a fascinating comparison between Clinton-hating and Bush-hating, while detailing the most offensive features of Bush’s presidency and background. It’s definitely worth reading. (I don’t know if the article is available to non-subscribers, so if this link isn’t working for you, go buy this week’s issue.)
One more terrific paragraph:
“To be a liberal today is to feel as though you’ve been transported into some alternative universe in which a transparently mediocre man is revered as a moral and strategic giant,” Chait said. “You ask yourself why Bush is considered a great, or even a likeable, man. You wonder what it is you have been missing. Being a liberal, you probably subject yourself to frequent periods of self-doubt. But then you conclude that you’re actually not missing anything at all. You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.”
Like I said, it’s a great article.