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

Matthew Continetti and Dean Barnett argue that the Iraq War can still be won.

Lorenzo Odone, whose battle against an extremely rare neurological disorder was the subject of the 1992 film Lorenzo’s Oil, passes away at 30. 

David Brooks on the threat posed by Iran.

UPDATE: Brooks and Gail Collins on the ‘08 election.

More humiliation for Barack Obama. More from Hugh Hewitt, John Fund, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and Jim Geraghty.

More humiliation for Barack Obama. More from Hugh Hewitt, John Fund, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and Jim Geraghty.

Actor/comedian Harvey Korman passes away at 81.

I can understand the mindset of the “thirty percenters”, those who still believe that George W. Bush has done an exceptional job as President despite clear evidence of his flaws. The mentality that animates Bush loyalists isn’t hard to comprehend. It’s a mentality borne of social factors both beautiful and grotesque.

“Thirty percenters”, it must be acknowledged, live in the past. Not the 1950s, as the left often claims, but in the immediate past—the six turbulent, controversial years between 1998 and 2004. “Thirty percenters” were as galvanized by these years as “progressives” were by the years 1963-1969: this era remains vivid in the collective conscience of the pro-Bush right.

The “thirty percenters” are, to quote Barack Obama, bitter—but their bitterness has a logical basis to it. They are still angry over the Monica Lewinsky case, outraged over President Clinton’s defiling of the Oval Office, horrified by his perjury, livid over the Democrat Party’s decision to defend him instead of abandoning him. These “thirty percenters” are social traditionalists who cannot fathom why some would consider Clinton’s actions morally neutral.

The pro-Bush right is still steamed over Congress’ refusal to remove Clinton from office. Clinton’s acquittal in the impeachment trial is still seen as a black mark upon the nation; for the “thirty percenters”, February 12, 1999 is a day that will live in infamy, a day that saw traditional public morality finally pass away. Angered by Clinton’s acquittal, the “thirty percenters” vowed that the next President would not be a moral reprobate.

These men and women fell in love with Bush from the beginning. They wished his father had defeated Clinton in the 1992 election, and worked tirelessly to ensure that “Dubya” would have the opportunity to bring his father’s honor and dignity back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They loathed Al Gore, viewing him as a politician who would continue the fundamental amorality of the Clinton years. They stood by Bush while the press attacked his National Guard service and spread false rumors of past substance abuse. They stuck up for Bush when he was lambasted for supposedly lacking intelligence and gravitas.  They prayed for Bush during the post-election frenzy in Florida, and celebrated wildly when Bush was officially declared the 43^rd President.

Their hearts broke on September 11, 2001, when nineteen demented souls took the lives of nearly three thousand Americans. They donated money, gave blood, comforted survivors—and pledged allegiance to Bush when he vowed to pursue those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to the ends of the earth.

They rejoiced as our soldiers kicked butt and took names in Afghanistan, and heckled Democrats who found fault with Bush’s antiterrorism initiatives. They fully agreed with Bush when he declared that terrorism-sponsoring regimes had to be toppled—and backed the President when he said that Iraq was the most dangerous member of the Axis of Evil.

The “thirty percenters” never gave up on Iraq, never doubted for a minute that America would ultimately achieve victory. Despite the controversies surrounding the war—Abu Ghraib, the failure to find large WMD stockpiles, the “Mission Accomplished” declaration—they never wavered, never backed down, and never accepted the argument that John Kerry would do a better job as Commander-in-Chief.

The “thirty percenters” fought Kerry just as aggressively as our troops fought the enemy in Baghdad and Fallujah. Preventing Kerry from seizing the White House was Priority One: the pro-Bush right worked harder than they did four years prior, convincing the American people that while Kerry might report for duty, he wouldn’t do a damn thing once he actually had to fight. Their hard work paid off: when John Kerry conceded defeat on November 3, 2004, the “thirty percenters” danced all night. After six years, they thought, the stain of the Clinton era had finally been removed. In their view, America had once again become a patriotic nation, a decent nation, one nation truly under God.

“Progressives” assume these people are stupid. They’re not: some of the wisest folks in this country are “thirty percenters.” The problem is that their narrative ends in November 2004, and thus they can’t understand why others feel there’s more to the story.

We’re an ideologically segregated society, so those disillusioned with Bush will never understand the “thirty percenters”, and vice versa. Yet I can’t help wondering if things would be a little more civil in this country if both sides could understand each other. If the “thirty percenters” could accept that there are intelligent folks who don’t think Bush is so exceptional, and if those who disapprove of Bush could accept that there are intelligent folks who don’t think Bush is the worst President of all-time, perhaps we wouldn’t be so willing to punch each other with red and blue gloves.

We can’t all just get along—but what if we could? What if we could regard those who have differing opinions of Bush not as enemies, but as fellow Americans?

The tenth anniversary of the passing of Barry Goldwater. More from CBS News, Pat Buchanan and the Washington Post.

New York Governor David Paterson announces that his state will honor same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts and California. Like the judges who made the California ruling, Paterson is taking this action because the conservative groups that battled same-sex marriage in the mid-2000s have lost most of their political power.

Dean Barnett asks: is Barack Obama an educated fool?

UPDATE: More from Karl Rove.

The latest Barack Obama gaffe. Lord love a duck…

The latest Barack Obama gaffe. Lord love a duck…

Jeff Jacoby on the apparent collapse of the Bush Doctrine.

UPDATE: Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan turns on Bush. Is he pulling a David Brock? More from CNN.

Five years ago, Charles Krauthammer declared that the American left suffered from “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, an ailment typified by a desire to blame everything that went wrong in the world on the current President. Thankfully, I’ve never contracted BDS, but unfortunately, I must disclose that I suffer from another malady: Bush Disappointment Syndrome.

The symptoms of this disorder are anger and frustration—anger over Bush’s multiple mistakes, and frustration over the reality that Bush, who had the potential to become a great President, has not lived up to his initial promise. I’m not the only one suffering from this ailment. All over the country, folks on the center-right are dealing with the pain of this disease.

It’s hard to say when Bush Disappointment Syndrome began to manifest itself. Did it start with No Child Left Behind, or the Medicare prescription drug benefit? Did the suffering begin with the Harriet Miers mess, or the Dubai Ports World fiasco? It’s hard to say when it began, but now it’s become an epidemic.

Libertarian-minded Republicans have also felt the sting of Bush Disappointment Syndrome. At least the libertarian GOP can point to the specific causes of their illness: Bush’s endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and his support of efforts to preserve Terri Schiavo’s life in 2005. (Some libertarians have argued that their symptoms first started appearing when Bush nominated John Ashcroft as his first Attorney General.)

The length of the Iraq War has also triggered new cases of Bush Disappointment Syndrome: in the mid-2000s, even William F. Buckley was diagnosed with the war-related version of this sickness. While many conservatives still believe that Saddam Hussein had to be ousted from power, there are quite a few folks on the center-right who wish that the war had been won long before now. (If Bush had been able to stabilize Iraq and send our troops home by the end of 2005, he would be considered Ronald Reagan’s equal by this point.) It will be a long time before America again wages a “pre-emptive” war (even a “pre-emptive” war whose necessity cannot be logically questioned), and because of this, even those who give Bush praise for preventing a 9/11 sequel are feeling the weakness and nausea associated with this syndrome.

Those afflicted with this disorder can’t help remembering the “good old days” of the early-2000s, when Bush had astronomical approval ratings and seemed to be well on his way towards grasping the brass ring of excellence Reagan seized in the 1980s. Most of the folks who voted for Bush in 2000, whether they want to admit it to themselves or not, did so out of nostalgia: they were hoping that Bush could recapture some of the old Reagan magic and restart the political revolution the Gipper began two decades before.

The Bush administration has been a dream deferred for conservatives. The size of government swelled, and the Republican Party’s prospects for political dominance shrank. The left became more powerful, more entrenched, more effective during the Bush years, while the right became frail and stale.

Michelle Obama is right for the wrong reasons when she says America’s soul has been broken.  It is inaccurate to say that America as a whole has a broken soul, but when it comes to the American right, there is no question that spirits have been damaged. Conservatives feel, not without reason, that the last eight years have been a bait-and-switch. They supported Bush in the hopes that he would continue Reagan’s effort to check the growth of liberalism; now, they see liberalism so powerful that it could elect a President long on rhetoric and short on experience.

I’d still vote for Bush given the same alternatives presented in 2000 and 2004. Yet, it is impossible to deny that his entire administration has been, on the whole, a missed opportunity. Yes, Bush gave the right Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and highly qualified judges on the federal district and appellate courts. Yes, he presided over an economy that, prior to the woes of late-2007 and early-to-mid-2008, was quite strong. Yes, he installed the firewalls that kept the country safe from the virus of post-9/11 terrorism. Yet he could have done so much more.

Reagan moved the country to the right, at least for a time. Where did Bush move the country? Are Americans more traditional in their views, more patriotic in their thinking, more conservative in their values than they were in 2000? Heck no—otherwise, a man of Obama’s political vision would be commonly regarded as pathetic, instead of Presidential.

Bush was neither a success nor a failure. He was just sort of there, as Clinton was in the 1990s. His administration was focused more on avoiding mediocrity than it was on pursuing excellence—a profound aggravation to his one-time supporters, who demanded excellence. For conservatives, it’s a sad end to a happy beginning, but there’s no way to change the past.  Only the passage of years will provide the ointment that can soothe the pain caused by Bush’s disappointments. 

John McCain campaigns with President Bush.