| |
Worse To Come: The Bush Presidency is Over
|
|
|
Worse To Come: The Bush Presidency is Over
|
|
by Pierre Tristam
|
| |
|
Toward the end of Travels With Charley Steinbeck makes this
observation: “My own journey started long before I left, and was over before I
returned. I know exactly where and when it was over. Near Abingdon, in the
dog-leg of Virginia , at four o’clock of a windy afternoon, without warning or
good-by or kiss my foot, my journey went away and left me stranded far from
home. I tried to call it back, to catch it up—a foolish and hopeless matter,
because it was definitely and permanently over and finished.” Anyone who’s taken
a long journey knows what Steinbeck is talking about. It isn’t always the end
point of a journey that determines its end, nor is it ever the person who takes
the journey who determines it. The same can be said of presidencies. Some of
them begin long before inauguration day. Bill Clinton’s began sometime in late
summer, about the time when Maureen Dowd noticed that the elder Bush just wasn’t
interested anymore. “This,” she wrote in a Sept. 6, 1992
dispatch co-written with Thomas Friedman, “may be the first Administration
in history that is scrambling for its first-100-days plan in its last 60 days
before facing the voters.” Johnson’s presidency ended in February 1968, Jimmy
Carter’s on April 24, 1980, when eight servicemen were killed in the Iranian
desert as an attempt to rescue the 52 American hostages held in Teheran
disintegrated in a sand storm, and Reagan’s ended in Reykjavik in 1987, when he
was about to sign away the American nuclear weapons arsenal in an abolitionist
deal with Gorbachev. His aides stepped in and ensured that he’d be nothing more
than the acting president for the remainder of his scandal-ridden term.
The second Bush’s administration unfortunately began early, too, on that
turbid Election Night in 2000 when Fox News set the tone of the unmaking of
Gore’s legitimate win and the Supreme Court sealed the fix thirty-six days
later. But if W.’s presidency started more than two months too soon, it ended
two years early.
Bush’s Abingdon was his January 10 speech, the so-called “surge”
speech. It became evident then why he couldn’t make up his mind before Christmas
about what to say, let alone how to say it. He had nothing to say: His
administration was in disarray, his policies bankrupt, his integrity a nightly
punch-line. Even his beloved speech-writer was gone, loyal no more. Not long from now when the stories begin
to creep out about these final days of the Bush junta we’ll be told that the
White House was a menagerie of chaos and backbiting, of uncontrolled tempers and
lusted-after booze. We’ll discovered to what extent the nation’s business was
unmoored and the nation’s executive off his rockers, his wife or maybe his dog,
or an obscure corporate friend, his last remaining link with reality. His
advisers either inflated his bubble or betrayed him, or both, if the advisers in
question are Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes, the two who had his trust and
could have made a difference. The January 10 speech proved that neither they nor
Bush were interested in recasting the last two years of the presidency into a
workable surge of its own, the way even Clinton managed to do despite the
Lewinsky affair (and the Clinton presidency, as we’ll also discover, has yet to
end).
The State of the Union confirmed the drift announced on January 10. The
proposal on energy—cutting gasoline consumption by 20 percent from projected
consumption in 2017—is a non-binding promise that rests on undeveloped
technologies. Improving fuel efficiency is a great idea, if only it weren’t two
decades too late, if it wasn’t so timid (one mile per gallon in improved
efficiency per year, for just a few years), if Bush hadn’t been so opposed to
the idea in the last six years. His desperation was clearest in his appeals for
bi-partisanship, a notion no other president in the twentieth century worked so
hard to demolish after making it the centerpiece of his inaugural in 2001. But
we knew even then that he was a liar of magnificent proportions. He was the man
who’d spent the electoral campaign selling the public on his massive tax cuts
while promising to save entitlement programs and pay down the national debt. It
wasn’t his fault that the public bought the lie whole, though, le t’s always
remember, the majority of the public never did.
Resigning would be too statesmanlike an act for a man who likes to rule by
edicts, and to whom power is its own reward. So we’ll spend the next two years
sustaining his chaotic clock-running, watching the flashpoints of disasters he
lit up spread their fires from Iraq to Afghanistan to Iran to North Korea,
watching the promises he made about New Orleans sink in a flood of indifference
and government incompetence, watch the machinery of government, corrupted by his
years of nepotism and contempt, become its self-fulfilling prophecy of
shoddiness and mistrust. The damage done by the Bush junta in the last six years
may yet be outdone by the damage of the next two, because at least in the last
six there was the hint that some of the criminals involved in the mugging
believed in what they were doing, Bush among them. The faith-based business,
remember. Now the worst part of the end of the Bush presidency, the most
palpable part of that end, as we saw it on January 10 and again in th e State of
the Union , is that Bush himself, like his father in 1992, no longer believes.
He’s given up. He quit. As he has always quit. What’s left is the old shell, the
reconstructed drunk without a goal, the resentful loser. And there’s nothing
more dangerous when he remains, all ridicule aside, the “decider” and worse: the
commander-in-chief.
Copyright 2007 Pierre Tristam
###
|
Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
|
|
|
| |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|