Bush-whacking democracy
Bush-whacking democracy
Updated 06:44am (Mla time) Oct 13, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 13, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
GEORGE W. Bush kept his histrionics to a minimum the second time around, and so managed to lose to John Kerry only by a slim margin. But the voters are not likely to forget the image he cut during the first debate. That was when he showed his true colors. American commentators would have a field day later analyzing the personality that emerged from it. "Arrogant," "testy," "slowwitted" were some of the words they used.
One suggested that he exhibited all the characteristics of a "dry-drunk," an alcoholic who hasn't had a drop for a spell, showing impatience, rudeness and a persecution complex. Another, John Reynolds, had a theory about the persecution complex, as demonstrated by Bush interjecting, "Let me finish," 60 seconds into his rebuttal when no one was asking him to stop. It was probably Bush listening to a prompter through a hearing device. It's the only explanation that fits the facts, Reynolds says. Other than that Bush is hearing voices in his head, of course.
If I recall right, that was how a James Bond movie introduced the villainous Goldfinger. He was cheating at poker by having someone tell him what his opponent's cards were via a hearing aid.
But this isn't a column on Bush's personality, or how the second debate went. This is about the fragility of democracy. For the one thing that struck me after reading all those commentaries about Bush's character, "mediocre" being the summation of it, was how someone like him could possibly have waylaid American democracy.
That he should become president isn't startling at all. The American presidency has known mediocrity, and even prospered with it, the system being pretty much on autopilot. Gerald Ford, the White House equivalent of Edward Blake's Inspector Clousseau (he supplied abundant proof of being a bumbling fool), easily comes to mind. So does Ronald Reagan, who served for a couple of terms, saw the world in terms of Star Wars and propped up tyrants all over the globe, but presided over a period of affluence and liberalism for America. No, there are precedents for Bush-like clones becoming president of America. What is startling is that Bush should be able to switch off the autopilot and bushwhack democracy.
The only precedent for it is Joseph McCarthy. He it was who brought the United States to a point everyone today would be hard put to recognize as democratic. He was the fellow who caused a massive witch-hunt of communists in the United States -- the equivalent of Bush's witch-hunt of terrorists in the United States -- employing methods thereto known only to communists, the way Bush has used methods hitherto known only to terrorists. The price of being blacklisted, or worse brought before the all-powerful Committee on Un-American Activities, was steep. Many Hollywood directors and actors lost their jobs and their standing that way, some of them committing suicide, others fleeing the United States. Charlie Chaplin was one of the latter and he never set foot on the United States again.
By all accounts, McCarthy was not unlike Bush. In fact, he was uncannily like Bush. Like Bush, he was ambitious but had few credentials to back up his ambition. Like Bush, he was a failed businessman and had a rocky political career, particularly at the start. Like Bush, he was investigated for unethical campaign behavior and falsifying tax returns but managed to have it quietly dropped. Like Bush, he dragged his country to hell by sowing fear, hatred and suspicion among Americans and turning many of them into informers. Like Bush he made patriotism the true refuge of scoundrels. The only thing about him, in fact, that isn't like Bush is that he did not become president, thank God.
But Bush has, and shows to what extent anyone with mediocre abilities but with vaulting ambition -- a combustible mix -- can do to drive even American liberal democracy, which has withstood various onslaughts for a couple of centuries, down the path of tyranny. Of course, he had no small help from 9/11, a dramatic event that shifted the tectonic plates of history -- and American thinking, making it vulnerable to paranoid tweaking. But McCarthy did not have any such help -- the threat of a nuclear attack remained only a threat -- and was still able to do it.
The strength of a democracy is its people. But that strength can also be a weakness, particularly when the press, which deals with the molding of public opinion, conscripts the people into the cause of tyranny. The American press did so in the 1950s, the American media have been doing so since 9/11. Indeed, there is an earlier precedent for this: Even before the 1950s, in the last years of the 19th century, Randolph Hearst's newspapers -- the equivalent of today's Fox News -- whipped up America's appetites for imperial venture by pointing to the need to rescue Spain's colonies (Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines) from its brutality. Not quite incidentally, Bush's concept of forcing democracy by gunboat upon those countries that do not have it dates back to this period, when William McKinley unveiled his doctrine of "manifest destiny" or "white man's burden."
Fortunately, democracy, though not impervious to attacks like this, is also not brittle. It does rebound, no small thanks to the people themselves recognizing the madness for what it is. Though whether the rest of the world that has felt the impact of America's slide to tyranny rebounds just as fast, is another story, and one best left for another day. For the moment, what's worth contemplating is the vulnerability of even the most robust democracy to authoritarian manipulation. It does highlight the truth of an old adage: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The price of democracy is eternal questioning.
Updated 06:44am (Mla time) Oct 13, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 13, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
GEORGE W. Bush kept his histrionics to a minimum the second time around, and so managed to lose to John Kerry only by a slim margin. But the voters are not likely to forget the image he cut during the first debate. That was when he showed his true colors. American commentators would have a field day later analyzing the personality that emerged from it. "Arrogant," "testy," "slowwitted" were some of the words they used.
One suggested that he exhibited all the characteristics of a "dry-drunk," an alcoholic who hasn't had a drop for a spell, showing impatience, rudeness and a persecution complex. Another, John Reynolds, had a theory about the persecution complex, as demonstrated by Bush interjecting, "Let me finish," 60 seconds into his rebuttal when no one was asking him to stop. It was probably Bush listening to a prompter through a hearing device. It's the only explanation that fits the facts, Reynolds says. Other than that Bush is hearing voices in his head, of course.
If I recall right, that was how a James Bond movie introduced the villainous Goldfinger. He was cheating at poker by having someone tell him what his opponent's cards were via a hearing aid.
But this isn't a column on Bush's personality, or how the second debate went. This is about the fragility of democracy. For the one thing that struck me after reading all those commentaries about Bush's character, "mediocre" being the summation of it, was how someone like him could possibly have waylaid American democracy.
That he should become president isn't startling at all. The American presidency has known mediocrity, and even prospered with it, the system being pretty much on autopilot. Gerald Ford, the White House equivalent of Edward Blake's Inspector Clousseau (he supplied abundant proof of being a bumbling fool), easily comes to mind. So does Ronald Reagan, who served for a couple of terms, saw the world in terms of Star Wars and propped up tyrants all over the globe, but presided over a period of affluence and liberalism for America. No, there are precedents for Bush-like clones becoming president of America. What is startling is that Bush should be able to switch off the autopilot and bushwhack democracy.
The only precedent for it is Joseph McCarthy. He it was who brought the United States to a point everyone today would be hard put to recognize as democratic. He was the fellow who caused a massive witch-hunt of communists in the United States -- the equivalent of Bush's witch-hunt of terrorists in the United States -- employing methods thereto known only to communists, the way Bush has used methods hitherto known only to terrorists. The price of being blacklisted, or worse brought before the all-powerful Committee on Un-American Activities, was steep. Many Hollywood directors and actors lost their jobs and their standing that way, some of them committing suicide, others fleeing the United States. Charlie Chaplin was one of the latter and he never set foot on the United States again.
By all accounts, McCarthy was not unlike Bush. In fact, he was uncannily like Bush. Like Bush, he was ambitious but had few credentials to back up his ambition. Like Bush, he was a failed businessman and had a rocky political career, particularly at the start. Like Bush, he was investigated for unethical campaign behavior and falsifying tax returns but managed to have it quietly dropped. Like Bush, he dragged his country to hell by sowing fear, hatred and suspicion among Americans and turning many of them into informers. Like Bush he made patriotism the true refuge of scoundrels. The only thing about him, in fact, that isn't like Bush is that he did not become president, thank God.
But Bush has, and shows to what extent anyone with mediocre abilities but with vaulting ambition -- a combustible mix -- can do to drive even American liberal democracy, which has withstood various onslaughts for a couple of centuries, down the path of tyranny. Of course, he had no small help from 9/11, a dramatic event that shifted the tectonic plates of history -- and American thinking, making it vulnerable to paranoid tweaking. But McCarthy did not have any such help -- the threat of a nuclear attack remained only a threat -- and was still able to do it.
The strength of a democracy is its people. But that strength can also be a weakness, particularly when the press, which deals with the molding of public opinion, conscripts the people into the cause of tyranny. The American press did so in the 1950s, the American media have been doing so since 9/11. Indeed, there is an earlier precedent for this: Even before the 1950s, in the last years of the 19th century, Randolph Hearst's newspapers -- the equivalent of today's Fox News -- whipped up America's appetites for imperial venture by pointing to the need to rescue Spain's colonies (Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines) from its brutality. Not quite incidentally, Bush's concept of forcing democracy by gunboat upon those countries that do not have it dates back to this period, when William McKinley unveiled his doctrine of "manifest destiny" or "white man's burden."
Fortunately, democracy, though not impervious to attacks like this, is also not brittle. It does rebound, no small thanks to the people themselves recognizing the madness for what it is. Though whether the rest of the world that has felt the impact of America's slide to tyranny rebounds just as fast, is another story, and one best left for another day. For the moment, what's worth contemplating is the vulnerability of even the most robust democracy to authoritarian manipulation. It does highlight the truth of an old adage: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The price of democracy is eternal questioning.
posted by Dante at 10:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home