Those who demand that a cartoon image of George Bush be embraced to the exclusion of all else -- that all one can say about him is that he embraced and brilliantly executed an Evil Corporatist Plot to enrich himself because he is Evil and that his evangelical furor is just an act -- are themselves exhibiting the precise mentality that drives the Bush movement. The world is driven by pure Good and pure Evil. Understanding the world requires nothing more than figuring out who is on what side. That explains everything. There are no complexities, nuances or shades to any of it. And indeed, even the attempt to discuss the world or its events beyond these simplistic formulations is not just misguided but corrupt, as that endeavor conceals the simple, two-dimensional truths that explain everything.
-- Glenn Greenwald
I read a comment on Libby that was basically a "poor baby" defense -- he had lots of things on his mind, he didn't mean anything wrong, and hey, everyone forgets now and again. It was a simply ridiculously true believer comment, but I learnt my lesson. "Come on, you can do better than that" is not too useful of a response. But, yeah, sometimes you just think that. And, sometimes, it is simply true. Surely, this sort of fingers in ears "la la la" sort of thing.
One needs to be humble though, especially as one reads blogs and comments and listens to Air America. For instance, some simply "know things," and they are not all Naderites. One thing that drives me crazy, especially since three past or present (one a guest host) Air America hosts take it seriously is the idea that there was a big conspiracy on 9/11. Not one explained what exactly the role of the hijackers -- whose murderous antics we know from those on the plane -- happened to be. The implication btw is that the Bush Administration had a direct role in some way.
[Apparently, even now, negligence is too hard for some to believe.* I want to note here that this doesn't mean we know everything about the events that went on, in part since our "leaders" didn't think a damn it all full disclosure and full court press investigation was appropriate -- hey, don't blame us, no one knew blah blah -- but that is a different issue. Planes hit the buildings, okay? No missiles. No bombs. No big evil Bush conspiracy.]
More germane, perhaps, is the overall sentiments of some respecting the Bushies. One charming stereotype is that Bush is a moron -- it is like the key Bush joke on David Letterman and Conan O'Brien, about as prevalent as the "Paris is a slut" bit. Shallow thinking there -- underlined by a whole Slate feature ("Bushisms") where we are supposed to laugh like fifth graders at him mangling the English language. Since, you know, only bad people have problems with diction. Or, that is what we should focus on.
Bush has moronic tendencies, but he is more lazy than stupid much of the time. This is a central point to the post linked in the beginning -- the whys of the good/evil simple meme of the Bushies is not as important as the fact it is done and is bad for our republican society. Some simplistic knee-jerk argument on the why is liable to be a bit too cute. The "reality based community" should be careful about that. This includes such things as overdoing it on the "Christian Right nuts control the party" front as well. Though with the stem cell deal again being vetoed, maybe that is not that best example to mention today.
[The Dems decided THIS time to risk a third veto. Great place to draw a line in the sand, people. As to the reason for the veto, it is said to be a big moral argument about destroying ... rather paying for a certain sort of ... human life. The people at large think it immoral not to do this research. But, "moral" only means what Bushies think it means, apparently. We have gone down this road before.]
I also am getting a bit annoyed at Thom Hartmann, the early afternoon Air America guy who replaced Al Franken. He has his good points, but still can use a bit of nuance. He loves Thomas Jefferson and really dislikes Ronald Reagan. The sympathetic can note that both represented movements, but would still wish Hartmann showed more evidence that he knows this. He repeatedly suggests life was grand ... until 1980 ... when Reagan ruined everything. Yeah, that's how easy it was. This simplistic view ignores up and down trends, the long haul (e.g., Carter began in earnest our focus on the Middle East in the post-OPEC world as well as started the road to deregulation), and the fact Reagan was part of a movement.
[Hartmann also throws in simplistic comments like that there were no dynasties in colonial times that controlled a lot of wealth and so forth, which is simply untrue. Struggles between the well off and struggling masses was an important issue in the times. He even tossed a big whopper about the fact Ben Franklin -- who retired in his 40s or so -- was not a wealthy man. Or, that only tariff revenued paid the U.S. government's way in antebellum years. How about money from land sales, direct taxes, loans and excise taxes? Whiskey Rebellion, anyone? Sigh.]
I want to make it clear that I realize that sometimes you have to generalize or simplify, especially if you only have a few minutes, are summarizing to a general audience, or are writing a short post or message online. Still, too often, I see knee-jerk reactions from the left as well as the right, which is human nature, but something that must be guarded against all the same. We can agree about some basic sentiments, such as equality and reasoned government, without going too far in the simplicity and knee-jerk department.
I admit to not reading or listening to enough people I fully disagree with (my views are mixed enough that various groups sorta agree with me on various issues, which helps), but it helps to read everything with a guarded eye. It turns out that even these you generally agree with can be a be too fast and loose.
[I would say I shouldn't throw the first stone, but that story was just added late anyway ... lol.]
---
* Ironically, GG notes Noam Chomsky apparently is as annoyed at this sort of thing as me. In part:
When someone carries out a controlled scientific experiment in the best laboratories in the world - at the end, there are lots of things that are unexplained -- funny coincidences and this and that . . . . which are just going to leave a lot of things unexplained. That's just the way the world is. . . . That's just the way complicated events are.
There is also his compatriot, Howard Zinn, whose new American history book for young people was panned in Sunday's NYT Book Review as one track. I have read some Zinn, and I respect him, but he does have a one track mind -- a balanced history his work (I read the adult version) is not. Too many typical history books leave a bit to be desired, but replacing cheerleading with constant booing doesn't really seem like the only way to go.