Radiofree West Hartford - DON'T BURY BUSH JUST YET by Tim Siggia

DON'T BURY BUSH JUST YET

By Tim Siggia

September 19, 2005

In a recent op/ed column, syndicated columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. trumpeted his fondest wish as an accomplished fact: the Bush Era is over, he declared. It ended in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, according to Dionne, and, while the Bush presidency still has more than three years until its expiration, it has already failed beyond repair or redemption.

Dionne cites the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, as the real beginning of the Bush era -- not the actual beginning of his term nine months earlier, so Dionne's readers were thus spared yet another rehash of "selected not elected." Dionne says Mr. Bush then had his opportunity to unite a country that was already uniting itself against a common enemy, and blew that opportunity with a rash of partisan initiatives. Naturally, a liberal would say this. He then continues with a long litany of Mr. Bush's supposed missteps and squandered opportunities that irreparably polarized our nation.

I single out Mr. Dionne in this regard not because of any personal vendetta, but simply because his is the most visible example of the war which Dionne and his colleagues in the liberal fraternity of journalism have been waging against George W. Bush ever since he was elected, not selected, in January, 2001. I could have just as easily chosen Molly Ivins, Richard Reeves, Jules Whitcover, or any of half a dozen other liberal pundits in this regard. They're all saying the same thing. I would urge my own readers to read Dionne's column, and note how nearly every word of it drips with rage, venom, hatred, and yes: partisanship.

Conspicuously not listed in the list of Mr. Bush's perceived transgressions and failures, for obvious reasons, are what Dionne and company obviously consider to be his two most unforgivable crimes: those of belonging to the wrong political party and espousing the wrong political viewpoint. To illustrate this point, let us imagine for a moment that every aspect of our current situation is exactly the same except for one minor detail: the president in question is a Democrat named Bill Clinton. Would E. J. Dionne then have said so much as one critical word? Indeed, would this particular column ever have been written in the first place?

For the answer, let us harken back, distasteful though that may be, to the Clinton years. Dionne was writing his columns back then, but if we retrieve a few of them we will notice a decidedly different tone to their content. Josef Goebbels was never as praiseworthy of Adolf Hitler as was E. J. Dionne of Bill Clinton. His columns then were absolutely fawning, as were those of the rest of his fraternity. They eagerly credited Clinton with everything for which he claimed credit, though little if any of it was actually his doing. Clinton's obvious shortcomings and transgressions were either played down or ignored, his crimes readily excused. This band of unashamed apologists for Clinton leaped to his defense when the Monica Lewinsky affair came to light (which, by the way, it never would have had this crowd had its way). Now try to imagine what these self-righteous scribblers might have written had the object of Monica's bizarre affections been not Bill Clinton but George W. Bush! The answer is obvious: All we have to do is read their columns today.

It is true, as Dionne contends, that Mr. Bush at present is lagging in public opinion polls. However, a historical examination will bear out that there is nothing particularly unusual about this at this particular point in a two-term presidency. Even The Greatest American President Who Ever Lived, Bill Clinton, had his particular brand of a lull at this juncture: the American people, according to the polls, liked the job he was doing but did not like him personally. Mr. Clinton, of course, had one conspicuous advantage that Mr. Bush obviously does not have: the American "mainstream" media working as his personal public relations agency.

On the same night Dionne's column was published, Mr. Bush spoke directly to the American people. First and foremost, he accepted personal responsibility for the inadequacy of government response at the federal level to the Katrina disaster. (Can anyone imagine Bill Clinton doing that?) Then he outlined a step-by-step program of federal initiatives to not only deal with the problems at hand, but ensure a similar lack of response to a future disaster never happens. During his twenty-minute address, Mr. Bush showed himself simultaneously as the compassionate father and the commander-in-chief. Under his leadership, and with the cooperation of government at all levels, the Big Easy will not only survive, but resurge to even greater heights than it knew previously.

To Mr. Dionne I would contend that his assertion that the Bush era is over is nothing more than so much wishful thinking on his part. It will not be truly over until January of 2009, when his Republican successor takes office, leaving Dionne, Ivins, Whitcover, Reeves and the rest to wail and gnash their teeth for another four years.