I'm sure someone else has made observations along these lines, but I think the "journalist" who threw the shoes at President Bush was, while acting out, expressing a largely unacknowledged collective rage on behalf of many of his fellow "journalists" -- and not just the ones in Iraq. Showing extreme and contemptuous disrespect for the President of the United States has come to be a tradition, and it's not going to stop with the exit of Bush.
I was never especially enthusiastic about Bush (as I explained many times, I held my nose when I voted for him), and I'm even less enthusiastic about Barack Obama. But either Bush Derangement syndrome or Obama Derangement Sydrome (or Clinton Derangement Syndrome before them) strike me not only juvenile but ineffective. They just guarantee further such behavior.
Throwing shoes of course, was merely an extreme form.
Especially in the figurative sense, there will be many more. While Obama may get a temporary break (largely because most of his conservatives critics fear looking like racists), I think over-the-top political behavior feeds on itself. Each "side" makes the other feel justified in retaliatory shoe-throwing, and it will only get worse.
Roger L. Simon is more optimistic than I am, and he sees hope in the shoe-throwing incident.
more importantly and more apposite to today's event was that other, oft forgotten, reason Bush went to war in Iraq - that the only way to bring true peace to the Middle East would be through democracy. He wanted to spread the democratic system preemptively. A lot of people have sneered at that idea lately, but while they were sneering Iraq has inched forward toward a democracy. It's even turning into a (somewhat) decent place to live. That buffoon-like shoe chucker - his name is Muntazer al-Zaidi from Al-Baghdadia channel which broadcasts from Cairo - proved it. No matter what happens to al-Zaidi now (and it won't be much if anything), it will be nothing like what would have happened to him if he had hurled a shoe at the president during the previous Iraqi administration of Saddam Hussein. As we all know, in that case, he would either have had his tongue and scrotum cut out or both, if he would have survived at all.
And that's the point - something good has happened. Something very good.
What isn't so clear, yet, is how history will treat George Bush. I have a suspicion it's going to be better then a lot of people now suspect - or are willing to admit.
I agree that Bush was a much better president than any of his critics are willing to admit, but it's going to take a long time for the current generation of shoe-throwers (especially the academicians who write the history) to die off. Maybe in 40 years people will start looking at Bush more objectively, but for now, I think the shoes will keep flying.
posted by Eric on 12.16.08 at 11:54 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7803
Comments
"Bush was a much better president than any of his critics are willing to admit"
Admittedly, that's setting the bar fairly low, but still...in what area could Bush be considered a successful President?
Dr. Nobel Dynamite · December 16, 2008 02:17 PM
It is definitely way too early to assess George W Bush's place in the presidential pantheon.
His was definitely as eventful presidency, which will be defined by three things:
(1) 9-11 and the response thereto;
(2) The pre-emptive and optional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and
(3) The $700 billion bailout of the financial industry.
History will treat him well for his reaction to 9-11 and the prevention of further terrorist attacks on US soil (save for feee-lance jihadis such as John Muhammed (DC sniper) and the guy who shot up the El-Al counter at LAX). I think history will treat him well on the Iraq and Afghani wars, as these are going very well at the end of his term and a bringing very positive change to that region with minimal loss of US blood.
But #3, the bailout culture, is the wild card in the bunch. Decisive action to prevent worsening of a financial crisis? Or dangerous reversal of the move away from socialism from the Reagan Era? None of us have a clue how history will judge that.
His presidency will be judged a mix of the very good and the very bad. Whether history judges the very good as out-weighing the very bad (e.g., Woodrow Wilson) or the converse, the very bad out-weighing the very good (e.g., LBJ) remains to be written.
Rhodium Heart · December 16, 2008 02:24 PM
"History will treat him well for his reaction to 9-11"
I could not disagree more. I believe he had a golden opportunity to use international goodwill to smash the Taliban and decapitate al Queda, but he absolutely squandered every chance he had. I believe history will judge his administration very harshly for cultivating a fear of terrorism to undermine the rule of law.
"I think history will treat him well on the Iraq and Afghani wars, as these are going very well at the end of his term"
Leaving Iraq aside for the moment, in what possible way could you consider the war in Afghanistan to be "going very well?" I know that Ann Coulter thinks it it is going swimmingly, but I'm not sure I've seen anyone with actual knowledge of the situation express that sentiment.
Dr. Nobel Dynamite · December 16, 2008 02:37 PM
Waa Waaaa Waaaaa
What the hell "international goodwill" was there that Bush "absolutely squandered"? If you think the world loved us on 9-11, or 01-19-00 or whatever, you have no sense of history or perspective. We went into Afghanistan right after 9-11, long before Iraq. NATO committed some troops, but with major strings attached. It was the US, Britain and Australia who did the real fighting. Did you happen to notice that al-Qaeda is a shell of what it once was. As for the Taliban, what state do they control now as compared to 9-11? I can guarantee that on 01-21-09 we will be treated to a ton of stories about how wonderful things are in Afghanistan. (And if we'd stop fighting the damn Drug War there, and focus on the much more important War on Terror, we'd be even closer to real victory.)
There hasn't been any "goodwill" to squander in about 50 years. As long as US culture is dominant, and the womenfolk of the world want to f**k U.S. men (and avoid being treated like chattel in their home country), the world will hate us. Even (especially) oh-so sophisticated Western Europe.
Under Clinton, we'd gotten too comfortable with the idea of suffering a major terror attack at 18-month intervals. Clinton's impotent responses to Khobar, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies, and the USS Cole never "squandered" any "goodwill," I will grant you that, but Bush broke that cycle. In what way is the al-Qaeda or the Taliban more powerful? Ooo, ooo, Bush "created" more terrorists by his strategy of playing offense. Define "more," please. Do you have census data? I only know that there are far fewer attacks against us.
And that's definitely worth some value on the Bush side of the ledger.
Rhodium Heart · December 16, 2008 04:08 PM
We all know the Dr Nobel type, blind support for whatever they support, any data that does not support their position is a lie. Anyone who does not support their position is an idiot.
Closed minds on any side are not helpful.
Hugh
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
"Bush was a much better president than any of his critics are willing to admit"
Admittedly, that's setting the bar fairly low, but still...in what area could Bush be considered a successful President?