Here’s an email that’s harsher than I would be, but it does get to something problematic about the otherwise admirable James Lileks:
You wrote about Lileks bleat today, “One other thing: there is nothing in his piece about Bush’s record.” Until recently I read his column frequently and I have never, not once, seen a single criticism of Bush or any other Republican for that matter. Lileks is as partisan as Ed Gillespie. I haven’t read his column since his hateful piece essentially calling gay people a bunch of whiny complainers for being offended by the hatemongering in the Republican party. He had the audacity to compare the privacy of his preschool daughter to that of Mary Cheney. Comparing the hard slog in WWII in the Pacific to Bush’s ineptitude in Iraq is absurd and shows just how he’s lost his grip on reality. Lileks is a Democrat turned Republican. My theory is that he’s lot like every Catholic convert I’ve ever met. When they’re around you can’t tell a pope joke without getting a scornful look. Converts of all kinds are the most radical and dogmatic.
Of course, we’re all products of our own environments. As basically a conservative, I’m much madder at Bush than I’d be if I were a Democrat. My beef is with my own side. Similarly, some of, say Marty Peretz’s or Ron Radosh’s support for Bush is vested in their own valiant struggles against peacenik see-no-evil Democrats. That’s where their passion is. Lileks is similar. But if he had made sensible criticism of the shambles in Iraq, or even acknowledged it in anything but dismissive terms, I’d be more persuaded.
BUT NONE OF THAT MATTERS: On the other hand, here’s a typical email in defense of Bush:
I agree with you that Lileks could have written that piece a year ago, and that he essentially ignores Bush’s record. However, it seems to me that Bush’s mistakes — and there are many — do not matter, so long as one doubts that Kerry will prosecute the war aggressively. If you’re not sure — and many of us are not — that he fundamentally “gets it,” then you cannot possibly vote for him. The question of Bush’s mistakes is a second-order question. First, you must ask if someone will fight; then, you ask if he will fight well. You jump to the second question, say Bush will not fight well, thus Kerry must be elected, QED. I’m not saying you can’t vote for Kerry — but you can only vote for Kerry if you think that he will fight. Personally, I don’t. Neither does Lileks. This is why, fundamentally, their relative competences are not relevant to us. Bush might not be the best wartime leader imaginable, or even available, but he is by definition preferable to someone we’re not sure will actually fight a war.
But the competence of the current leader cannot be completely irrelevant. If his incompetence means we actually lose the war, then surely some kind of reassessment is due. So the question becomes: how incompetent is he? And that’s a matter of degree not kind. You also have to unpack the notion of “fighting a war.” What does that exactly mean? Invading Iran? Or North Korea? Those are not viable options. We’ve already invaded two countries in three years. And much of this war is indeed police work and law enforcement and this president understands that as well. It’s a blend of strategies; and the blend will shift with the circumstances. This hyperventilating about who “gets it” only gets us so far. And what disappoints me about Bush supporters is their apparent inability to give specifics about where their candidate differs or would differ from Kerry. I’m listening. And I hear little but rhetoric.
The Dish 