George W. Bush: Not Actually the Devil
By Peter Douglas
Staff Writer

I used to be a big time Bush-basher. I loved the websites that made George W. Bush look like a monkey, the books full of garbled speeches and interviews, and the jokes about the President’s IQ. I would begin every article I wrote for this newspaper by describing how idiotic, greedy, fascist, and evil the President was and how once again he was going to screw up all of our lives. Lately, however, the pervasive Bush-bashing is beginning to bother me. It is not that my opinion of the President has changed; it is as low as ever. Nor do I think the President deserves a higher level of respect; we should be able to treat our presidents with the same lack of respect we show everyone else. The problem with Bush bashing is that it is a sign of desperation, a sign that we feel so powerless to stop the country from heading in a direction that many of us feel is terrible that all we can do to make ourselves feel better is call the President stupid. This is a bad sign, because when you start calling people names, it means they have already won.

It seems that much of the country is reserving their most powerful emotions, either love or hate, for George W. Bush. Time magazine has made this their cover story this week and recent polls have shown that the difference between the President’s approval rating among Republicans and Democrats is at its highest point ever. This is a problem because intense emotions often make it difficult to think clearly, and a major national election is when it is most important for people to think clearly about their elected leaders.

That is why I am concerned about the upcoming Democratic primaries. There is such a pervasive attitude surrounding the candidates that Democrats need to choose someone who can “beat Bush.” In many ways this seems to be all that matters. This phenomenon can be seen most clearly regarding General Wesley Clark. Clark is one of the two candidates with a large following at Pomona (Howard Dean is the other), and yet the only real reason given for supporting him is because he is a General, so Bush will not have an advantage over him on national security. I have heard so many people say “wouldn’t it be great to see Bush, the Vietnam War deserter, in a debate against GENERAL Wesley Clark.” I do not think it would be great, because I am not convinced Clark would make a good President, and at that point I do not care if he makes Bush look bad. I do not want to pick on Clark, he may yet be a great candidate, but it is just the clearest example of how many Democrats are so focused on Bush’s negative aspects that they cannot pay any attention to the positive aspects of the candidates they support.

If Democrats choose a candidate because he or she has the greatest potential to beat Bush, they will be making a mistake for two reasons. First, they will be choosing a candidate based on their fear and hatred, not on hopes for a great presidency. This will basically ensure that if this candidate wins, it will be a bad presidency. If Democrats focus so intensely on getting Bush out of the White House, and then succeed, a “now what?” moment will follow and suddenly our next President will have to scramble for the policies he or she did not develop during the campaign. We will have elected the anti-Bush, and while that may sound good now, it is not a solid foundation for a presidency.

Second, the “Beat Bush” strategy is going to end in defeat. The basic idea behind this strategy is to get votes by showing how Democrats are more qualified on Bush’s traditional strong points. The classic example of this is Clark on national security. Yet Democrats tried this very strategy in 2002 and it ended in shameful ruin. Many Democratic candidates in that race decided not to challenge Bush and instead try to present themselves as tough terrorist fighters. This only ended up giving credibility to their Republican counterparts and cost many Democrats their seats in Congress.

By focusing on security and Iraq in this election, instead of domestic issues like job losses, health care, and the environment, all issues for which Bush has a terrible record, Democrats are basically playing into Karl Rove’s hands. Bush already has 500 million dollars to spend on ads scaring Americans into thinking terrorists are going to take over the world if he is not re-elected, and there is little Democrats can do to stop that. If, instead, a candidate could convince disillusioned voters that he or she was genuinely dedicated to fixing the nation’s decaying social institutions and promoting social justice, they could easily pick up the votes that went to Ralph Nader in 2000. Those votes would have won Al Gore the election. We live in a polarized nation, and for better or worse motivating the poles is the only way to win this election. This won’t happen with a “beat Bush at all costs” campaign.

Most likely the main reason Bush bashing is so popular right now is because it is easy. It is sure to get a reaction and you do not have to think about why millions of Americans think Bush is doing a great job, how economic inequality has been growing in this country long before Bush took office, or how pervasive and powerful money has become in both parties. These questions need to be answered, however, before Democrats can offer a serious challenge to not only Bush but the powerful system of moneyed interests that he represents. If the Bush-bashing continues in the place of honest consideration of policies, then the Democrats will not only lose the election, but lose what is left of their integrity as well.