It's almost as if the main-stream media is starting to get it.
(And for those of you not familiar with the magazines mentioned below, they are right at the top of the list of old, established, reliable, literate, slightly snooty, brilliant magazines in America.)
Harper's magazine, cover, June 200: "UNDOING BUSH; How to Repair Eight Years of Sabatoge, Bungling and Neglect"
The Atlantic magazine, cover, September, 2007: "LESSONS OF A FAILED PRESIDENCY"
Of course, there are many assessments of Bush and his presidency as the worst in US history, or among the worst, but the fact that two of the pre-eminent magazines in the country shout this fact from their prestigious covers is both remarkable and significant. It is also rather courageous, since it's very easy to imagine that the Bush White House might well find ways to punish the magazines for their bold proclamations.
The bad news is that most—not all—of what is so terrible about Bush and his cronies was fully apparent before the 2004 elections, and Americans re-elected him anyway.
2 comments:
From André :
There is a "letter to the editor" in the latest issue of the Economist, which I reproduce here without permission.
quote
SIR - I grew up a Republican and rarely voted otherwise. From the 1950's until the 1990's the Republican party broadly represented the centre of the political spectrum in America. Gerald Ford, George Bush senior, and even Ronald Reagan clearly understood and honoured this fact. I took George Bush at face value in 2000 and voted for him. By 2004 it had become clear that he was a classic Dixiecrat masquerading as a Republican. Unfortunately, too many of us waited until after the 2006 mid-term election to make our views known. By early 2007 Mr Bush's honeymoon with centrist Republicans and independents was over. We finally realised that we had been misled.
unquote
In the same Economist issue, there is an article that tells of a day where George Bush and staff improvised a religious service in Air Force One (in flight), which some 40 of the people present attended, including Condoleeza Rice who led the worship. The service ended with everyone singing hymns and hugging eachother.
I somehow cannot reconcile the idea of these supposedly devout Christian people with their world politics of the last 7 years. Can anyone, and would they explain the link to me ?
Ah, André, you're such a sweet and simple lad. Have you no idea how things work in this world of ours?
Here in America, at least, self-righteousness is a cover, a weapon and excuse for anything. Two of our most self-righteous groups (and that's saying a lot!) are the fundamentalist/evangelican Christians, and the patriots. The Christians know that as individuals they can do no wrong, since they acting on behalf of the Lord, but are pre-forgiven for anything that should inexplicably go wrong. The patriots know that America itself can do no wrong, and that if it should somehow inexplicably do something that is perceived as wrong, it is (a) the fault of the America-haters who always portray American in a negative way, (b) not as bad as what happens in other countries, and (c) because sometimes you have to make sacrifices to live in the greatest best most wonderfullest country that ever was.
Either of these orientations is enough to choke a horse with hypocrisy and self-justification. Put them together and you have an immunity from consequences and an isolation from reality that creates deep illusion and permits any action. And that action is, by definition, righteous, God-endorsed, and, in the impossible event of mistake, pre-forgiven. What a deal!
Post a Comment