The whole thing is inexplicable. I remember years ago the first time I had to face a hostile crowd (in my case, nothing worse than a bunch of sales guys and distributors), and I probably did as badly as Rumsfeld. But you learn pretty quickly once you've done this a few times, and what you learn is that even if you can't satisfy all their requests you can keep things on an even keel just by showing some respect, acknowledging that they have good points, and promising to work their issues when you get home. They might not be completely satisfied, but they won't boo you out of the hall either.
Rumsfeld has been doing this kind of thing a hell of a lot longer than I have, and the fact that he apparently still hasn't learned this lesson says something about his character. And it's not something good.
-- Kevin Drum
The basic principle being put forth here is one that I share as a basic philosophy as well. For instance, when discussing a matter with someone that I disagree with in some sense, I still try basically to be polite and accept that the person is not completely off base. Few people truly are, though they might be (IMHO) confused, nasty, or simply wrong. Such individuals sometimes deserve some degree of scorn or rough treatment, but a general "f-you" philosophy is not really the way to go.
If this is how you view things, including when you are in some role of authority, something is wrong. I'm not saying the other side will respect you if you follow Drum's principles, but quite often they will in some fashion. If not, it's not your fault, and this too will be noticed by others.
The Bush Administration, though this is deemed a good thing by some (character, firmness, assurance, knowing what it takes to win, etc.), does not really seem to believe in this principle. President Clinton was someone who acknowledged both sides had some good points; in fact, he was at times accused of going too far in the wrong direction. This might be unpleasant to me on a policy standpoint in certain areas, but it seems to me a good thing given the divisions in the country.
And, surely, he was a good politician, and damned the other side when politically useful. All the same, on a certain level, he was not an either/or sort of guy. Unlike with Rummy or Bush, you didn't get the idea that it was either his way or the highway. Surely, the fact he faced a Republican Congress helped, but it was also part of his very make-up.
This is why that this bunch turn me off aside from their policies. Kevin Drum links up to an unofficial blog of the DLC to show the administration and friends have radicalized moderate Democrats (a class that includes Al Franken of Air America)
At times, I can barely believe how people who seem like fairly moderate sorts, no crazies they, basically think the nation is being run by a party who are putting forth a fraud on this country whose breadth and negative effects make the tobacco companies look like choirboys.
It doesn't really faze me on some level though because the cynicism, less blatant forms of dishonesty, and recklessness is enough for me to agree with the blog that there was simply no "honest" way to justify re-electing this bunch. The fact they were might be depressing and all, but my opinion remains the same. Thus, it is pretty easy for me, since even if the critics are partially right, I'm greatly troubled. After all, I actually do not like a lot of the substantive policies of the leaders, so I'm suspicious to some degree already.
Anyway that blog notes that it is President Bush's participation in the party's myth making machine that really turns him off. Things that do not, though they do some others, include"his swagger, the nicknames, the scriptural references in his speeches, even the anti-intellectualism." Well, his swagger annoys me, given I feel he has not freaking reason to be so full of himself. Others find this petty or sour grapes and respect such lack of humility, though I did think it was considered a good Christian trait.
I don't mind the nicknames per se, since if someone else was doing it, it might be cute. It is annoying given the source, since it suggests a certain triviality that seems to fit the man. The fact he is a man of a certain faith is also fine, though I wish his bunch keep in mind that it is not the only faith (and be more loyal to its precepts). On the other hand, I do not think anti-intellectualism, especially to the degree it is taken, is a great thing in a leader.
But, like my response to Rumsfeld, my dislike does not just grow from the fact President Bush is a sort of pretender to the throne and the party is run by principles that I find simply wrong. No. It does go back to character, which is a fitting term given all the talk about values these days. This bunch simply doesn't have the character I feel is the basic kind that we all should follow. They lack humility, respect, simple fairness, or the willingness to sacrifice some for the better good. It is not always an either/or matter, but the leanings are clear. So, fine, talk about values all you want.
This bunch doesn't have the sort that we should want in our leaders. In fact, they have the opposite, which is why even a less than ideal (substandard if you so desire) alternative was the way to go November 2. The fact this was not re-affirms the thought that moral values and character is not quite what this bunch offers. And, if it is what people truly want, let's point that out and give them some people who can. If it is not what the people want, then we have to show why they should.