hmm...carter's last book stirs up a little storm for the "to support israel means never admitting that israel does anything questionable" set...and now from conservativeland there floats the "assessment" of carter's administration repeated above...the collective psychological function of this repackaging is obvious: "dont worry lads, george w. bush is not the worst president in history: someone else is."---but you'd think it so transparent in its function and so obviously false in historically that no-one would buy it.
the bush administration is a catastrophe: for the united states as a whole, but ESPECIALLY for the american right. if the ethos of taking personal responsbility that the right used to float as a pretext for cutting social programs (for example) actually meant anything, you'd think that conservatives would have to fall on their swords at this point. accept the reality that the embodiment of much of their ideology has wrought--unmotivated by the way (as there was no real reason to invade iraq)---say something on the order of "the logic of our politics have resulted in an unmitigated disaster and we must now rethink that logic."---but instead you see stuff like "bush is not a real conservative" or "bush is not as bad as x". so much for taking personal resposibility i guess. scuttling away from danger, the conservative ideological apparatus is well into damage control mode, speaking to maybe 25% of the population, that potentially ficitional 25% that supposedly still supports this administration's policies, and trying otherwise to distance themselves from the bush administration: relativize the failure, spin the damage, create historical bogeymen, on and on ad nauseum.
but the right cannot simply jettison the neocons.
it is obvious that the bush administration represents a kind of uncomfortable reactionary coalition centered on the neocons, around which various elements were arranged to appeal to a range of social/religious conservative interests. it is also obvious that most of these elements have come to feel betrayed by the bush people because--somehow--they had thought the collage organized differently and that their particular interests were its core. so the bush administration has been pulverizing the right.
as the bush administration has inflicted enormous damage on the united states as a whole.
there is no element of its policy that is not a disaster: even their idiotic "no child left behind" charade has been a collosal failure.
here's a little assessment of the situation it now faces:
Quote:
State of the Union
Bush whacked
Leader
Thursday January 25, 2007
The Guardian
The back-slapping, the rictus smiles and the standing ovations of the State of the Union speech are integral to the annual ritual. But they could not disguise the hard truth that this was a very different report to Congress than any that George Bush had delivered before. Mr Bush went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday attempting to revive a presidency suffering ongoing collapse. He did so in the face of a buoyant new Democratic majority in Congress, the worst confidence ratings of any White House occupant since Richard Nixon on the eve of his resignation, and a surge of interest in the 2008 election that only emphasises his isolation. Unsurprisingly, Mr Bush's speech was a failure.
Much analysis of the state of American politics is skewed by the barely disguised hope that Mr Bush and his Iraq policies will get the comeuppance they deserve. So it is important to recognise that Mr Bush is not a lame duck - yet. If he can use his powers smartly he has several months - at least until the autumn - in which to achieve some of his political goals before the floods of the 2008 contest start closing over his head. But there was not much in Tuesday's speech to suggest a president who believes he has a strategy for dealing with the America that he faces in the coming two years. Mr Bush observed the right courtesies towards the new majority party and its leaders. But he was not defensive, and he was certainly not apologetic. On Iraq he talked of a fight that had to be won and a victory to which America must turn. He talked tough on the federal budget too, promising a plan to balance it next week. But he refuses to face the reality about both these crises. Most Americans think he got them into these holes and are reluctant to trust his solutions. More to the point, most members of Congress, including a lot of Republicans whose seats now look suddenly vulnerable, do not believe in them either. If Mr Bush is smart he will look elsewhere - immigration or the environment - for a bipartisan agenda.
But is he smart? And is he bothered? The circumstances of the 2007 State of the Union carried interesting echoes of the 1999 speech. In each case, a pummelled and humiliated president faced a Congressional majority that mostly hated him and a minority that was sceptical. Eight years ago, at the height of the impeachment effort, Bill Clinton fought hard and clever, making concessions where he had to, but still summoning the authority to win some Congressional battles and to mobilise the public on his side. Mr Bush could try something similar. But he gives few signs of doing so. Perhaps he will surprise us all. Perhaps there is a Bush plan B. But Mr Bush looks increasingly like a general who has run out of ideas, troops and hope.
|
source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1997923,00.html