For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don’t like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don’t like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from “Too bad” to “You’re bad.” ~Peggy Noonan
I can sympathise with Ms. Noonan’s disillusionment with Mr. Bush. Of course, to be disillusioned requires that you had illusions and therefore failed to see things as they really were and are. Impugning the motives of political opponents started at least in 2002. Those who did not sign on for the full range of warfare state measures, including the abuses and excesses of the PATRIOT Act, were denounced and their patriotism denied. Imputing villainy to political opponents was a major feature of the 2002 elections. This was something that the GOP as a whole engaged in quite actively. It was a Khaki election, and it was a good time to be a Bush cheerleader. It wasn’t as if Mr. Bush dragged them kicking and screaming down this path. They didn’t have their party and movement stolen from them–they gave them gleefully as if they were tributes to an overlord.
In fact, this tendency in casting political disagreement as the result of the moral deficiency of the opponent dates back to the beginning of Mr. Bush’s first presidential campaign when he accused Congress of “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.” The tendentiousness, the dishonesty, and the preference for liberal rhetorical tropes (”racist,” “sexist,” “elitist” are some of the favoured terms of abuse hurled by the administration and its lackeys) were all there from the start. They re-emerged on a regular basis: those who were against democratisation in Iraq were racists who believed Arabs were not fully human, or something of the sort; those against the appallingly bad Harriet Miers nomination were sexist elitist chauvinist pigs, and so on. In smearing antiwar conservatives, of course, Mr. Bush had, still has, many willing helpers in the movement. Then there were all those in positions of some influence who saw what was happening, knew it was wrong and said nothing. The betrayals and compromises of the previous five years were no less horrible, no less significant and no less damaging in their different ways to this country than this amnesty bill, but those things were all bearable so long as they greased the wheels and kept the GOP in power in Congress. That seems to be the thinking of more than a few pundits who are now outraged at the treatment of Bush’s immigration critics. Now, having lost Congress, there is a sudden discovery among Republicans that Mr. Bush and his loyalists are dishonest, obnoxious and buffoonish. It took them long enough to admit this.
As myriad liberals have been pointing out this week as conservative complaints about the rough treatment Bush and his allies have meted out to opponents of the amnesty bill, there is absolutely nothing new in the methods that the administration is using. Mr. Bush has a long record of attacking his enemies by disparaging their patriotism, decency and common sense. He has learned well from the example of the masters of deceit and chutzpah–Wilson, FDR, Clinton–who were always sure to accuse their political opponents of the very things of which they were far more likely to be guilty. Opponents of amnesty on the right, who have mostly been more tolerant of Mr. Bush’s other projects (and some of whom have actively joined in with Mr. Bush in his past attacks or have made the attacks on his behalf), have now discovered that vilifying political opponents, denigrating their good faith and intimating that they are possessed of hateful prejudices are undesirable and unacceptable methods of debating policy.
Again, I sympathise in this case, since I also find the amnesty bill appalling. A great many conservatives, be they enforcement-first or restrictionist or some mix of the two, are finally in agreement that the administration has gone mad. Of course, he has been intent on doing this since 2001. There are no surprises here. From the day Mr. Bush signed No Child Left Behind, he had declared his hostility to the beliefs and interests of large numbers of people in his coalition. Everything that followed was merely a continuation of this. Now Mr. Bush and his allies in the GOP leadership declare their own constituents bigots, and apparently, finally, those constituents have started losing patience with these frauds. It’s about time.
The battered wife syndrome analogy is only too apt, since one of the symptoms of that syndrome is to exist in a state of denial, constantly blaming oneself and finding excuses and reasons to justify the abuse. “The President has been under a lot of pressure at work. We haven’t shown our appreciation for the tax cuts as much as we should have. Plus, we didn’t laugh at all of his jokes, and we mildly criticised him about McCain-Feingold…We were basically asking for a beating.” Worse than any excuse-making were the arguments that conservatives had to embrace Mr. Bush’s big-government conservatism as the inevitable future of the movement. Whether for pragmatic reasons or genuine changes of mind, many Bush supporters went along with this. Those whom the gods would destroy they first make into presidential loyalists.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 1st, 2007 at 1:12 am
kranza
Yeah, Bush may have hit a new low in his spirited attack on those who have supported him for so long but this can’t really be considered a betrayal. He told us he was a supporter of big government, even to the point where the absence of government is an attack on the poor or an abandonment of the afflicted (”when people are hurting, the govt has to move”), back when he first ran. He also told us he supported unassimilated immigration (”We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world…By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.”) well before he was elected. The Bush supporters just didn’t want to face it until they absolutely had to; ie, when a bill was on the table and Bush was insulting them over it. Many of them are ready to forgive him and move on if they can just get through this unpleasantness somehow.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:06 am
cyrus
Character assassination in politics long predates Bush, and so does hypocrisy about it. Nearly everyone does it, and almost all of them complain about it when it is done to them.
To give his erstwhile supporters a bit of credit, the issue of immigration was somewhat less urgent when the Republicans controlled the House. At least we could hope for Hastert and Sensenbrenner to help us, and last year, prior to the election, they did. We can expect no such mercy from Pelosi and Conyers, whose chief objection seems to be that this new bill is not lenient enough, and so the rage is, sensibly, much greater now that Bush’s plan is that much closer to becoming law.
For many of us - I was a former, qualified supporter of Bush - immigration simply is for more important than the war or trampling the Constitution (if you trample a corpse, does the corpse care?). You may find that ignoble, but the effects of unrestrained immigration are readily apparent to us every day, and it further has the potential to wreck America in a way that even another fifty years of ignominy on the Euphrates simply can’t.
Finally, the President’s dogged insistence on this issue is enough to stoke the rage even of otherwise enthusiastic supporters. They didn’t like “comprehensive reform” the first time, liked it less the second time, and now they’re rather naturally quite upset that he keeps insisting on foisting on them something they’ve rejected with increasing enthusiasm each time it’s been presented..
June 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am
hisownfool
Daniel: I would argue that, if anything, it’s worse than you describe. People like Noonan facilitated many of the worst offenses of the Bush administration. They led the charge for the war in Iraq; they didn’t hesitate to join in the chorus of denunciations. (Need I remind you of “Unpatriotic Conservatives?”) When things like the surveillance program, extraordinary rendition and torture were exposed, they went on the offensive against those doing the exposing — doing everything from urging prosecutions to publishing their home addresses and phone numbers.
These aren’t disillusioned naifs: they’re Thermidorians looking for a way to distance themselves from a man they helped put and keep in power without mentioning the principal reason that he’s so unpopular. I’m not saying that their disagreement over the immigration bill isn’t sincere: I’m saying it’s convenient.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Daniel Larison
I agree that it isn’t a betrayal in the sense that Bush suddenly changed his positions on a lot of these things after he came to power. It is a betrayal to the degree that he actually insists on carrying out policies that are vehemently opposed by many of his political allies and embraced by the people who are normally his political foes. When it comes to domestic legislation, he governs just like his father, and conservatives certainly did regard his father’s pieces of legislation as betrayals. (Yes, breaking the tax pledge was the big one, but it was more than that.)
I agree that the amnesty has the potential to do far more damage to the social structure, political habits and culture of the country, and so I suppose I probably overstated the importance of the other things, but all of the other policies he has advanced have been distastrous in their respective spheres of fiscal management, controlling the growth of government and foreign relations. What puzzles me is how the same people who spent five years cheering on, or at least acquiescing in, these other disasters can now claim shock or surprise that he has pursued another disastrous policy.
I guess some people don’t get angry with Bush until its their own particular ox that is being gored, but what is curious about Ms. Noonan’s reaction is that she has hardly been vehement on the subject of immigration herself. I have remarked on that in the past. She is certainly an enforcement-first sort, but controlling illegal immigration has hardly been an issue that really energised her in the past. Granted, she writes for the Journal, which limits how energised she can be about the subject, but it is odd that this, of all things, has finally pushed her into open rebellion. It is not so odd that she remains silent on the role of the Journal and its many contributors in collaborating in this gargantuan fraud against the nation.
As for the role of movement regulars in smearing antiwar conservatives, I did point to this in the post. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I assumed readers would get my point from the brief references I made.
Of course, there is also something rich about many anti-immigration conservatives, who went along with every other illegal thing this administration has done, suddenly becoming very exercised about the sanctity of the rule of law. I suppose you can shred the Constitution with one hand while pointing to federal law and gesturing approvingly with the other hand, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to do this.
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
MoeLarryAndJesus
” Mr. Bush has a long record of attacking his enemies by disparaging their patriotism, decency and common sense. He has learned well from the example of the masters of deceit and chutzpah–Wilson, FDR, Clinton–who were always sure to accuse their political opponents of the very things of which they were far more likely to be guilty. ”
Pathetic. Even while apologizing for the messy miscarriage of the Bushpig era, cons still have to resort to this kind of crap. Let’s get one thing straight - Bush and the leading lights of his dimwitted administration learned most of their lessons from NIXON. And Saint Reagan wasn’t above this sort of thing, either.
The inability of cons to be honest about their own history is why the next Republican nominee will be the same sort of malign thug Dumbya has been… or even worse. You people can’t help yourselves any more - you’re drawn to authoritarian flag-waving sloganeering morons like moths to a flame.
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:56 am
Daniel Larison
If by “crap,” you mean that we don’t forget that these Presidents were also rank liars who trampled on law and Constitution when it suited them, then I suppose we must resort to it. Bush does also borrow tactics from Nixon, and you won’t find much Reagan veneration here. I and the conservatives who read my blog are probably among the relative few willing to be “honest about their own history,” but your sad partisan loyalty prohibits you from seeing this. I have never been drawn to “authoritarian flag-waving sloganeering morons”–I leave that to Giuliani supporters.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
Grumpy Old Man
As our young Dark Lord becomes ever more prolific, the appearance of lefty trolls is well-nigh inevitable, and perhaps an emblem of his success.
The use of ad hominem invective is, of course, no monopoly of the GOP, but more or less a constant of our politics from its inception. Read what they wrote about Hamilton and Burr in the early days of the Republic, for example.
More recently, from FDR’s “malefactors of great wealth” to Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” to the constant resort to “racism,” “nativism,” “sexism,” “homophobia” and “theocracy,” not to speak of the ever-popular “fascism,” the left has developed its own varieties of slingable mud.
It’s something of a pipe dream that in a democracy issues could be discussed freely, on their merits, without resort to rhetorical devices to rouse hackles and the rabble. As a friend of mine once said of a malefactor we were dealing with, there’s no point in getting angry. Might as well get angry at a rattlesnake for being venomous.
Wear your boots and watch where you step in the underbrush.
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:39 pm
GuyInCT
I remember before the Iraq war began telling friends that I was against it but was hoping against hope that Bush and crew knew what they were doing. Turns out they didn’t (or an even scarier thought - maybe they did).
I guess many of us were taken in with the whole Neo-Con thing. After all, most of the NeoCons were weaned on the left wing ideology of the 60s but then later had an epiphany. Turns out that they were just as much in favor of big government as the Left… just for different causes. They were certainly not conservative in the Goldwater or Reagan sense. They somehow convinced us that big government and interventionist warfare were somehow “conservative values”.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:54 am
betsybounds
I think it would be wise to remember that voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004 was not, for most if not many of us, a positive good–not even at the time. But the alternatives were Gore and Kerry, respectively, and we held our noses and pulled the lever. It wasn’t necessarily an affirmation of what Bush believed–which, as is correctly stated by several here, was never any secret–or a blindness to what “compassionate conservatism” was and remains. I, for one, will never get over having voted for Ross Perot in 1992–in part at least to disown H.W. Bush–and, thereby, helped put Clinton in the White House. I’m no fan of either Bush, but it would be a good idea to recall what the alternatives to W. actually were. Anyone who thinks there was a good alternative to Bush in 2000 is a victim of faulty memory. The neo-cons, or at least most of the ones I know of, preferred McCain (e.g. the entire editorial staff of The Weekly Standard, just for starters) but were not able to influence the outcome in their own favor.
It would also be a good idea to consider the argument that the reasons for going into Iraq were good ones. There were no lies, unless you include the Big Lie that has been told for so long, now, that even Bush’s biggest supporters appear to have swallowed it. There were, in fact, probably masses of WMD in Iraq before Bush was persuaded (by that faux hero of Desert Storm and subsequent betrayor of Iraqi Shiite rebels) to go through the months-long charade at the UN, and they were at least arguably removed during the time that charade purchased for Saddam. There were documented operational and strategic contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Thomas Joscelyn and Steven Emerson have documented many of them. There were doubtless others. Doesn’t anyone else recall Salman Pak? Does Abu Nidal ring a bell here?
I agree that Bush has made a hash out of many things. I’ve been persuaded for some time now that “somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.” We can only thank God that Alberto Gonzales was never appointed to the Supreme Court. Bush lost me with NCLB and Campaign Finance Reform, which were both total abdications of his responsibility, the latter of his Constitutional responsibility. We need not forgive that to recognize that the alternatives to him in 2 elections were unacceptable. But the only problem I have with his entry into Iraq is that he hasn’t pressed to win, and he has allowed the State Department to co-opt him (that’s a charitable reading of the case, BTW) into suing for peace with Iran without entering the all-but-inevitable conflict with the mullahs. For that failure, we will all pay a heavy price in the probably near future, and at least in part because of his weaselly stances, our victory is by no means a sure thing.