Hate Bush Or What He’s Done?

"Animosity towards Bush is based almost exclusively on the policies he has implemented as President. Berkowitz all but acknowledges this, as the social events that have so upset him primarily involved his defense of Bush policies and strong reactions from critics — little things like starting a war based on false pretenses, introducing torture to our country, spying on Americans in violation of our laws, etc."

You think? As readers will remember, I have always found it very hard to actually hate George W. Bush. He maddens me, his policies have shaken my political allegiances and identity to the core, but I’ve always found him pretty congenial as a person from a distance. I’m glad I’ve never met him because I’d probably be totally suckered. Even on some of the deepest betrayals – spending and torture – I think his main crime has been criminal negligence and shallowness, not evil. But I do despise what he has done to this country, the wreckage in Iraq, and the dishonor of the torture/interrogation policies. I despise what he has done to conservatism, and the economic and environmental debt he will pass to the next generation. But I really, honestly don’t hate him personally. Certainly not in the same league as my visceral dislike for the Clintons.

These are odd conflicting emotions, I concede. They’re not entirely rational, but they’re real. They affect politics and political thought because no one in those fields is an automaton. I can happily defend Clinton’s record, but not his deceptive, calculating character. I cannot defend Bush’s record, and I cannot really defend the callow character that lies behind it. But I don’t think hatred of Bush is what I feel. It’s more pity, sorrow and outrage at what he’s done.

Post-Christianist Christians?

An encouraging sign:

Evangelicals, particularly younger evangelicals, are undergoing a shift in attitudes. Many have little interest in the self-destructive purity of the prophet or the raw pragmatism of the kingmaker. They remain culturally conservative, but uncomfortable with a harshly judgmental tone in their politics. They find the model of the religious right too narrow and are increasingly motivated by a broader range of social concerns, from disease in Africa, to the environment, to racial reconciliation. And they want to be a witness to these values instead of a tool in the power games of others.

The social and cultural witness to certain values is a long way from the use of politics to impose them on others. It seems to me that our society needs Christian witness – on charity, on caring for the environment, on protecting the vulnerable, on seeking peace, on opening dialogue – as much as it doesn’t need Christianist intolerance, politicking and campaigning. It’s especially important, it seems to me, that Christian witness also regain humility and an indifference to power. Forsaking a partisan identity is critical to this. On abortion, for example, serious and sustained efforts to highlight the life of the fetus, and to appeal to the conscience of a free people to make a free choice against it is a more authentic Christian witness than taking control of one political party in order to ban it.

JPod On Ron Paul

Ron Paul is now guilty by association with dead people:

[Paul and his supporters] have to take their lumps as well for echoing shameful voices of the past. The history of right-wing isolationism is that it has been a hotbed of classic and unambiguous anti-Semitism throughout the 20th century, as represented by leading-edge spokesmen from Henry Ford to Father Coughlin to Gerald K. Smith to the America First Committee.

Non-interventionism was the term they preferred, and the fact that Paul echoes them is understandably unsettling to a lot of people.

Lessig For Obama

Web icon Lawrence Lessig rips into Clinton in this post and offers another personal testimonial in defense of Barack Obama. Money quote:

She supported the war, but as my support of Edwards last time round indicates, I can forgive that. The parts I can’t get over all relate to the issues around corruption. I signaled as much in my comments about her comments about lobbyists. We see two radically different worlds here. And were she President, I’d bet everything that we’d see radically little change.

But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. I don’t get this in Democrats generally. I never have, but I especially don’t get it after two defeats to the likes of George Bush (ok, one defeat, but let’s put that aside for the moment). Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech. Say as little as possible. Be as uncontroversial as you can. Embrace the chameleon as the mascot. Fear only that someone would clearly understand what you believe. (Think of Kerry denying he supported gay marriage — and recognize that the same sort of people who thought that would win him support are now inside the control room at ClintonHQ).

Clinton’s main advantage at this point is fear. Americans used to fight fear. Now they seem to embrace it.

RomneyCare Update

This is something he should surely campaign on:

More than 80 percent of Bay Staters who were uninsured before the law took effect now have insurance, and while the deadline to obtain insurance (or risk a fine) is technically tomorrow, it’s effectively the end of the year, so that number will probably rise higher (and, keep in mind, this is before the penalty even kicks in, which could prod even more people to comply).

Will he have to wait till the spring to do so? I can barely believe it, but watching Giuliani makes me more sympathetic to a Romney candidacy. Or a McCain candidacy. Or a Thompson candidacy.