There is a very thoughtful and interesting article on the newfound liberal romanticizing and respect for George W. Bush that has been outpouring this year, in the early stages of Trump’s presidency.
I’m not a liberal, but I’m also not a Bush fan, and I do find it kind of hypocritical and bizarre for all the liberal Trump detractors all over the country to be blathering about how much they want Dubya back, seeing as how they hated his guts (for some reasons justified and not). Earlier this year, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she “never thought I would pray for the day that [George W. Bush] were president again.”
What are your thoughts on all the left-wing hosannas that we have been seeing for Dubya recently?
Just like when the left was holding up John Kasich as an example of a decent Republican presidential candidate. If Kasich had been nominated and elected, his right-wing views would’ve been held up as portents of the decline and fall of civilized society.
They never thought anyone as bad as Trump would become President, but nostalgia for Bush and more “traditional” Republican leaders is a crock.
Its the overton window. Now that the right supports someone much more deranged and inept than W, people like Bush seem decent by comparison to what the right supports now.
I don’t read that as newfound respect for Bush, but as a means of expressing true contempt and disdain for Trump. She may as well have said “Bush got us into an unnecessary war, diminished our international standing, exploded the deficit, and damn near crashed the economy, but at least he could speak in complete sentences.”
This reads like the same false argument by some recently, purposely misunderstanding the Comey firing hubbub.
Some people who support Trump, pretend that Democrats went from being upset with Comey (for his weird habit of blurting out updates about his investigation of Clinton at politically suspicious times), to LOVING Comey, because they objected to Trump firing him to (seemingly) protect himself and his friends from an unrelated investigation.
Again, I’m not a Bush fan, but to say that he was the worst President ever either betrays a gross lack of historical knowledge or willful blindness due to liberal hysteria.
You really believe he was worse than James Buchanan, who sat back and did nothing while his country was gearing up for civil war with each other, and in fact took actions to exacerbate the South’s abrasiveness? You think he was worse than Herbert Hoover, who enacted ruinous tax increases on the American people that made the Great Depression three times as worse, and raised unemployment to a whopping 25 percent?!
Get off that Kool-Aid, bro. And Trump isn’t the worst president ever, he’ll definitely be a great president.
If there isn’t an official name for this particular propaganda trick, there should be.
The goal of the propagandist, is to simultaneously denigrate BOTH the previous criticism of another person or group, while simultaneously denigrating the current criticism of someone else, usually by lying about one or both criticisms, so as to support a (false) accusation of hypocrisy.
As for myself, I still think that Bush II led the administration that caused the most damage to the United States as a nation of any other in the last hundred years. Trump is TRYING to do more damage, but he’s only been in office for under a year, and Bush had eight years to do his dirty work.
There is one thing I found that I missed about Bush II, as compared to Trump: when Bush II said weird malapropisms, it was often genuinely funny, albeit a bit unnerving in serious situations. So far, Trump has never been funny.
Apparently, nostalgia for GWB exists, although it doesn’t affect “all the liberal Trump detractors” as the OP claims. The Pelosi cite is accurate.
For evidence that such bullshit can be bipartisan, consider when Republicans supposedly longed for the halcyon days of Bill Clinton in the White House.
*"Pelosi’s specific flavor of nostalgia for Bush is notable because it so perfectly mirrors the equally improbable way Republican legislators and operatives began talking about Bill Clinton roughly eight years ago.
Despite old disagreements, Republicans hadn’t just forgotten their antipathy for Clinton by 2010—they were actively yearning for his return, at least in comparison to Barack Obama. Republicans complained that against the chilly, aloof, progressive Obama, Clinton was an affable, socially engaged centrist. The New York Times rounded up some signs of this newfound nostalgia. Orrin Hatch said Clinton would “go down in history as a better president” than Obama (a backhanded compliment if there ever were one). But Sean Hannity took to calling him “good old Bill.” Paul Ryan waxed: “I enjoy Bill Clinton. The first two years of his term were one thing, but the rest of his presidency was tempered with moderation, and the nation benefited.” David Bossie, who made his name as a Clinton antagonist, told Benjy Sarlin that however liberal Clinton might have been, he wasn’t a wild-eyed socialist like Obama.
This was all the more remarkable given just how acrimonious relations between Clinton and the GOP had been. "*
I think most people saying someone was the worst President ever are talking about since they were a teenager or at least someone they knew closely was a teenager; they are not making judgments based on history books.
I was a fierce critic of Bush and still do feel that the first 6 years of his presidency were as disastrous as any in American history. But I never questioned his basic decency as a person, and I always felt like he was at least doing what he thought was in the best interests of the country. I felt like Bush was terribly in over his head and reliant upon his advisors, many of whom were also under-qualified and used their relationship with him to wage an ideological crusade. If you look at his record objectively, though, I think the last 18 months of his presidency were not that bad. Bush stopped listening to Cheney and started going in a different direction. He tried different tactics in Iraq, which actually seemed to work at least temporarily. And while Bush rightly deserves at least some portion of blame for failing to head off the economic collapse of 2008, his administration admirably shook off the ideologues to his right who wanted to block the bailout of the financial system. I think Bush tried to be a good president…unlike the buffoon we have now.
Bush invaded a country under false pretenses, destroying it as a functioning nation. Also, he had people tortured. I don’t question his basic decency as a person either; he has very little.
Ooh, so close to a good, reasonable post. Does he stick the landing?
(Bolding mine)
Full-on faceplant, nearly broke his neck. Better luck next time, I guess.
As for missing Bush, let’s wait on that until Trump invades a middle-eastern country in a war of aggression with no plan for what to do while there, no victory condition, and no plan to retreat, making the entire world hate us even more.
I don’t see it happening. Bush and Obama have pretty much got rid of the boogie-men haven’t they? I mean who is next down the pecking order? Seriously.
We arn’t invading Cuba or Iran. Maybe some tinpot African country would be my guess.
If Trump doesn’t invade or bomb a new country (that his predecessor didn’t) he would be the first since…Carter?? No, raids don’t count.
As far what Trump’s (Bannon’s) actual ideas are, Trump is far worse than Bush. As far as actual shit effect on the world as a president, Trump isn’t and won’t be, because he won’t actually get any of his (Bannon’s) plans accomplished. There is just too much division of power. The GOP establishment fights the tea party for dominance, and the Dems are fighting them all. And with Trump going it alone and balancing the other sides with the grace of a drunk Brontosaur on ice, nothing as bad will probably happen.
Exactly. And as bad as Trump is, and as much as I hope he has a very short term of office, I can’t say I want him to burn in hell. But that’s what I want Bush to do.