Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Is George W. Bush more like Bill Clinton than any of us would care to admit?

No, Bush hasn’t had his way with any interns or ignored the threat of Islamofascism, but Bush and Clinton are alike in that their political opponents regard them as being devoid of any redeeming value. Talk to your average Republican and you’ll hear Clinton condemned as the worst piece of crap ever to shuck and jive his way into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; talk to your average Democrat and you’ll hear Bush castigated as a dopey, drunk, Bible-thumping frat boy who scammed his way into the White House.

Clinton and Bush are both symbols of the extreme partisanship that has gripped our country over the past fifteen years. Those who consider themselves Bush boosters will never understand the mentality of those who cherish Clinton, and vice versa.

Why are both men so despised by their political opposites? Mostly, it has to do with the way both men are perceived. Republicans see Clinton as the embodiment of let-it-all-hang-out, no-moral-standards-of-any-kind Left. Even Republicans who don’t consider themselves particularly religious feel that there should be some lines of demarcation clarifying what is, and what is not, acceptable behavior; they view Clinton as the man who led the effort to obliterate those lines.

Likewise, Democrats view Bush as the symbol of all that they despise about the Right: the perceived love of wealth, the perceived desire to create a "United States of Jesus," the perceived contempt for intellectual pursuit. The Left had its issues with Ronald Reagan, but they could only go so far in their condemnation of the 40th President: they couldn’t accuse him of being inarticulate or attack him for having been born of prestige. (Sure, they labeled him a racist, a hater of the poor and a homophobe, but they’ll do that to any Republican.) However, "Dubya" pushes all of the Left’s buttons: how can they have even token respect for a cowboy Christian from a clan with cash?

The Left often accuses Bush of being stubborn, of refusing to listen to alternative viewpoints, of narrow-minded, my-way-or-the-highway pseudo-thinking. Of course, the exact same thing can be said about Clinton. While he did borrow a few issues from the Right, Clinton aggressively pursued the liberal political agenda, launching an ultimately botched effort to establish universal health care and nominating staunch "progressives" Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Clinton rode a centrist image to victory in 1992, but he made no secret of his loyalty to liberalism. It’s hard to fault Bush for being an "ideologue" when his predecessor was just the same.

Bush and Clinton are also loathed by their political opposites because of the belief that neither man really "deserved" to be President. Conservatives never really came to terms with Clinton’s 1992 victory: according to the Right, Clinton didn’t really win the election so much as George H. W. Bush lost it. Conservatives have always viewed, and will always view, Clinton as The Man Who Got Lucky; there’s no way he could have ever beaten Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon. The Right has never deviated from its belief that were it not for Ross Perot and the perception that Bush 41 was indifferent to the concerns of those affected by the early-1990s recession, Clinton would have remained in Arkansas for the rest of his life.

The Left similarly regards Bush as a man who should have never made it out of Texas (or his mother’s womb, for that matter). Liberals have never gotten over the 2000 election controversy–and they never will get over it, either. Remember the early days of the blogosphere, when “progressives” would refer to Bush as the "pResident?" The Left’s contempt for Bush stems from its inability to accept the outcome of Bush v. Gore, and its refusal to even consider the argument that the controversy had to end for the good of the nation. (Their hatred for Bush also stems from their decision to ignore the fact that if Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have had the Electoral College win locked up before the Florida fracas.) Bush will always be just a thief to the Left, even if that argument is bereft of heft.

"Bubba" and "Dubya" aren’t that much different. Conservatives will always hate the former because they feel he screwed the Constitution; liberals will always loathe the latter because they feel he screwed the country. Their legacies will inspire endless debate–but who can question their ability to inspire hate?