Jonathan Chait should disqualify himself…
…from ever writing about George Bush again. But instead he brings us this piece with the undeniably correct title, “Barack Obama is not George Bush.”
Well, of course not. Was there ever anyone who had a particle of doubt on that score? When I first glanced briefly at the title, not paying attention to who had written the article, I thought for a fleeting moment that the author meant that Obama was worse than Bush. Then I noticed who’d written it, and I realized that Chait must be very threatened by how far the mighty Obama has fallen to feel called upon to differentiate the two and state how much better Obama is than his altogether-blameworthy predecessor.
This tells you how bad it must be for Obama right now, because Chait is the guy who wrote the most famous, no-holds barred, unashamed, and unapologetic ode to Bush Derangement Syndrome I’ve ever read.
It was titled “Why I Hate George Bush”—you certainly can’t accuse Chait of coyness—and was published in the New Republic in September of 2003, over ten years ago. Chait began like this:
I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I’m tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism–“I inherited half my father’s friends and all his enemies”–conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school–the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks–shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks–blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudopopulist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing– a way to establish one’s social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.
Tell us how you really feel, Jonathan.
[NOTE: Notice also the personal, juvenile quality of Chait’s Bush-hatred. It’s meant to sound tongue-in-cheek, but at the same time it appears deeply felt and rooted (as Chait himself seems to suggest) in some sort of adolescent humiliation and envy.]
Sad that someone is still upset that he didn’t get a fancy sports car when he was 16.
“I hate President
George W. BushBarack Hussein Obama. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I’m tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate theinequitableutterly dishonest way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so.”Remarkably apt when applied to Obama, yes? Though in Obama’s case they happen to be factually true rather than “less substantive”. But no need to list all the things to ‘hate’ about Obama, we all know them.
Chait doesn’t seem to know how many people think it would be better if Obama were Bush.
Chait is under the misapprehension that he is human enough to hate Bush on an equal level.
“Notice also the personal, juvenile quality of Chait’s Bush-hatred. . . . it appears deeply felt and rooted . . . in some sort of adolescent humiliation and envy.”
As Geoffrey Britain demonstrates above, Chait’s juvenile hatred and envy of Bush is the obverse of the same coin as his juvenile adoration of Obama. It’s that juvenile adolescent thought that bind him with so many other Progressives.
Man, I can smell the desperation from here. Did he write this to convince us or himself?
Chait’s current inner monologue: “La, la, la, la, Obama’s not a failure! He’s still way better than eeevil Bush! La, la, la, la….”
I LIKE his piece, actually. Especially this part of the third paragraph:
“If you measure the power of Obama’s presidency as the ability to move his agenda through Congress, his presidency has been dead since Republicans took control of the House in January 2011. If you measure it by his ability to use his popularity to force the opposing party to cooperate, it has literally been dead from the outset.”
See that? Obama is powerless, a president in title only. 🙂
Ah, hit return too soon.
I wonder if this is the new narrative: Obama WOULD HAVE BEEN a great president if it weren’t for those meddling
kidsRepublicans.MissJean: Obama WOULD HAVE BEEN a great president were it not for: BUSH’S FAULT!! ((-:
Our current embarrassing pygmy doesn’t come up to the toes of that brave, steadfast, Wartime Leader, President Bush.
Expat just commented on what I got from Chait’s writings as well – the rich kid got whatever . . . and I didn’t. “that’s not fair!”
The average panhandling wino on Main Street Anywhere, USA is a giant of honesty and integrity compared to BHO and his running dog lackeys. Words to describe these truly awful people are not fit for polite company and tender ears.
Don’t care much for Bush but this guy writes about how much he hates Bush, and then when people express personal dislike of Obama they are racists who hate black people.
Can you say hypocrisy?
I knew ya could.
I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it again: The Dems rely more on vilifying Bush and the GOP more than standing on their own positives. They are just as happy with people voting against the GOP as they are with people voting for teh Dems.
Rehabilitate Bush’s legacy and you’ve taken away the Dems shield, if not their sword.
Add: A counterpoint to Chait’s 2003 TNR essay is Tom Junod’s 2004 Esquire essay, The Case for George W. Bush – What if he’s right?
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0804-AUG_BUSH
Read the rest of it.
Thanks for the link, Eric. That was a good essay.
NeoConScum, that’s the first term narrative. He needs a grand finale! 🙂
MissJean: I think Parker aces it above. The Boy King has ALMOST the honesty of the average Main Street wino-panhandler. But, not quite!!
I usually give panhandlers nuthin’, but broke my rule a few days ago when I saw a really drunk one holding a sign on our rearest I-4 off ramp here in Winter Park, Florida: ” NEED BEER!!!” is what it said,’Yo!! ((-: Also saw one on a center island of a big blvd. near here who twisted wrong and a dandy i-Phone on a belt ring revealed itself.
Hey, ‘quality of life’ in Obamaland for grifters.
In some measure (small, I admit), one has to feel a bit sorry for Chait. It can’t be easy on the soul to see one’s idol crash and burn as badly as Obama has. No doubt, Chait saw Obama exactly the same way Barbara Walters did- as the Messiah, but he turned out, instead, to be just a man, and a poor example of one at that.
It’s not just Bush they villify. As seen with the Ducks, Sarah Palin, and Romney, anyone is good for the war grist.
The Left has no need of Americans or patriots. Everyone is going into the slaughter pens anyways, from their perspective.
Geoffrey Britain said it before I could. Just substitute Obama for Bush.
Bush was not my favorite pres but he was genuine. BHO? As phony as they get.
This must be the most recent leftist meme. Last night on Twitter someone posted a picture of Bush looking out of the wrong end of binoculars and the caption was “Still funny.” and it was retweeted by various celebrities. It has more than a whiff of desperation.
Bush is, has always been decent to the indecent. His finest attribute, but also his undoing….and the undoing of all conservatives. At some point they must find the fortitude to push pointed sticks into their adversaries’ eyes.
Bush was a flawed POTUS, but in my view he was the second best in my lifetime, and I was born in ’63.
Of course, the best was also flawed.
Don: “Bush was a flawed POTUS, but in my view he was the second best in my lifetime, and I was born in ’63.”
The Dems utterly rely on the narrative that Bush was the worst or among the worst Presidents of all time. For the most part, GOPers and the Right run away from defending and rehabilitating Bush’s legacy and treat it is a political weak point.
They should be doing the opposite. In fact, the Dems utter reliance on the anti-Bush narrative is a highly vulnerable point for them because it’s refutable.
Vigorously refuting the anti-Bush narrative would simultaneously highlight the lying and propaganda of the Dems against the Bush admin and provide historical context for the subsequent behavior of Dems in the Obama admin.
Eric… Amen. AMEN. A-Freaking-Men..!!
GWB was(is)a Giant next to his predecessor and successor. And, The Right Man at that huge critical moment. Think of the dwarflike Al Gore in the post 911 days. NIGHTMARE TIME.