Has anyone heard a speech lately by John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama that didn’t contain numerous references to the word “change?”
Attaining public office in a democracy usually involves promoting change. Those trying to gain a particular elected position for the first time depict themselves as outsiders, while incumbent officeholders are cast as the “In Crowd.”
In 2000 George W. Bush’s handlers billed him as a badly needed alternative to politics as usual, but as is often the case with anyone who’s lived inside the Beltway for seven years, W and his posse have become the very thing they professed to abhor just two presidential election cycles ago. They themselves became the Washington “In Crowd.”
To become more “in” than Mr. Bush and his minions currently are might not be possible.
The current administration’s handling of the conflict they themselves started in Iraq has been universally described as inept. That term is also an apt one for cronies like incompetent former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, whose peculiar leadership and faulty memory has left the justice department in a shambles. Michael Brown’s main qualification for being named to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency was that he was a longtime GOP loyalist. His hapless performance while doing “a heckuva job” after the Hurricane Katrina disaster provided further evidence that under Mr. Bush loyalty is worth infinitely more than ability.
Whether it was making a national issue of same-sex unions or more subtly appealing to bigotry regarding immigration, the Bush team has made much political hay through intolerance. Directly questioning the patriotism of those who opposed its policies is another example of the sort of disdainful bullying the White House has resorted to for the past seven years. “You’re either with us or against us,” the president said in a speech in November of 2001. Who knew that he was talking about much more than just the War on Terror?
Another stock in trade of the current president has been insincerity. Mr. Bush pledged that if any of his people were involved in the “outing” of CIA agent Valerie Plame, those individuals would no longer be employed by his administration. Yet Karl Rove, who gave an unconvincing explanation for his talking about Ms. Plame’s position with reporters, continued to work at the White House until he himself saw fit to move on and Scooter Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to investigators about the case, saw his prison sentence commuted by the president himself.
Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld relied on inaccurate intelligence in order to justify the Bush administration’s arrogant and aggressive attitude regarding foreign policy, and ultimately to warrant the necessity of a United States invasion of Iraq in 2003. Utter inflexibility subsequently played a key role as our nation’s leaders continued to escalate our military’s involvement there. The inability to admit to making mistakes played (and continues to play) a role in the ongoing Iraq misadventure.
While many in the administration like to think of themselves as intimidating, the fact is that they are for the most part just insolent. Vice-president Dick Cheney’s public suggestion on the floor of the U.S. Senate that Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy perform a physically impossible act on himself is just one example of a very small man who most stridently throws his weight around when those he tyrannizes lack the power to strike back. Mr. Cheney’s recent bellicosity stands in stark contrast to his attitude between 1959 and 1967, when he secured five different deferrals in order to avoid military service.
Mr. Bush has been consistently inarticulate since taking office, and on occasion the legion of flacks who have fronted for him have been as well. Give Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, Tony Snow, and Dana Perino credit though; it’s never easy to eloquently defend the indefensible.
The administration’s intransigence regarding science has been breathtaking. Mr. Bush’s encouraging schools to teach the theory of Intelligent Design, his efforts to cripple stem cell research, his initial pooh-poohing of global warming, his refusal to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, and his general dismissal of environmental concerns (particularly when they present an impediment for large corporations) show that where science is concerned the president has his feet firmly planted in the 20th century, and is intent on moving backward rather than ahead.
Mr. Bush and his crew have been indifferent to families unable to secure health care for their children, and their response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster was inadequate, unless one is impressed by choreographed sound bites and photo opportunities. The relationship the insular Mr. Cheney maintains with Halliburton and its many subsidiaries is incestuous. Thanks to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, those corporations have reaped profits (funded primarily by U.S. tax dollars) even more obscene than those pocketed by Mr. Bush’s friends in the petroleum industry. Republican defenders of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney should ask themselves this question: if a Democrat whose family had made millions in the oil business were in the White House, and the corporation formerly run by the sitting vice-president (also a Democrat) was securing countless government contracts (and in many cases not doing the work they were supposed to do) thanks to an armed conflict that the Democratic administration itself started based on questionable and/or falsified intelligence, how would they feel?
Inept. Incompetent. Intolerant. Insincere. Inaccurate. Inflexible. Insolent. Inarticulate. Intransigent. Indifferent. Inadequate. Insular. Incestuous. With this many ins, is it any wonder so many people are counting the days until this particular “In Crowd” is permanently Out?
Andy YoungReturn to main page
Font size: