A Misstep in Bush's Quest for Historical Redemption
(cross-posted at Unclaimed Territory)
Faced with disastrously low approval ratings, President Bush seems to have resigned himself to the hope that future generations will judge him more kindly than his contemporaries. I don't think this is a particularly realistic hope, but you can't blame a guy for trying to find a silver lining to an otherwise soul-crushing set of circumstances. Bush's most loyal apologists, and lately Bush himself, have taken to invoking the example of Harry Truman, a man who endured similarly dismal approval ratings toward the end of his presidency, but whose historical legacy has steadily improved since then. Just last week, Bush when out of his way to draw this comparison:
Yeah, I get it. And I understand why this is a pleasing analogy for Bush. Presidents want to be judged kindly by history. This is especially true when they stand little chance of being judged kindly in the present. But here's my question: if Bush is hoping that his validation will come from future generations, why on earth is he yet again coming out in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment?
The march of history is often unpredictable. One generation's fool can be the next generation's visionary. In many respects, though, the march of history is entirely predictable. We know, for example, that future generations will enjoy technology and gadgetry that far exceeds our current technological know-how. The progress of science and technology is incremental and inexorable.
Similarly, free societies inevitably progress toward greater tolerance and greater equality. Old biases tend to die off with the people who hold them. Does anyone really doubt that gay marriage will be a fact of life in most parts of this country within a generation? In the few years since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, public opinion has already shifted considerably. Polls consistently show that most younger Americas have no problem with allowing gay couples to marry. So the writing is clearly on the wall. Future generations will almost surely view the Marriage Protection Amendment (and its state counterparts) in the same light that we now view anti-miscegenation laws. Indeed, I suspect even most social conservatives realize this, which is why they are frantically trying to take advantage of popular opinion while it is still on their side.
I always marvel at this phenomenon. Why is it that each generation of social conservatives thinks that it will be the one to stop history's march? They never seem to realize the power or inevitability of the processes they're opposing.
Bush, of course, is under no such illusions, which makes his decision all the more strange. He knows the MPA won't pass. And as Steve Benen points out, he has to know that his 11th hour support of the amendment is unlikely to satisfy his fundamentalist base. And I doubt that Bush himself personally supports the MPA. So why bother endorsing it? Why publicly support a measure that future generations will overwhelming view as nothing more than a statement of ignorance and bigotry?
For someone who is so clearly hoping for historical redemption, this is certainly a counter-productive move.
UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan, here's what James Dobson had to say earlier this week on his radio show:
Nice. No wonder Dobson and his followers are so willing to stand athwart history, yelling 'stop'. For them, the inexorable march of history = the forces of hell.
Faced with disastrously low approval ratings, President Bush seems to have resigned himself to the hope that future generations will judge him more kindly than his contemporaries. I don't think this is a particularly realistic hope, but you can't blame a guy for trying to find a silver lining to an otherwise soul-crushing set of circumstances. Bush's most loyal apologists, and lately Bush himself, have taken to invoking the example of Harry Truman, a man who endured similarly dismal approval ratings toward the end of his presidency, but whose historical legacy has steadily improved since then. Just last week, Bush when out of his way to draw this comparison:
"By the actions he took, the institutions he built,
the alliances heforged and the doctrines he set
down, President Truman laid the foundations for
America's victory in the cold war," Mr. Bush told
the class of 2006.
Yeah, I get it. And I understand why this is a pleasing analogy for Bush. Presidents want to be judged kindly by history. This is especially true when they stand little chance of being judged kindly in the present. But here's my question: if Bush is hoping that his validation will come from future generations, why on earth is he yet again coming out in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment?
The march of history is often unpredictable. One generation's fool can be the next generation's visionary. In many respects, though, the march of history is entirely predictable. We know, for example, that future generations will enjoy technology and gadgetry that far exceeds our current technological know-how. The progress of science and technology is incremental and inexorable.
Similarly, free societies inevitably progress toward greater tolerance and greater equality. Old biases tend to die off with the people who hold them. Does anyone really doubt that gay marriage will be a fact of life in most parts of this country within a generation? In the few years since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, public opinion has already shifted considerably. Polls consistently show that most younger Americas have no problem with allowing gay couples to marry. So the writing is clearly on the wall. Future generations will almost surely view the Marriage Protection Amendment (and its state counterparts) in the same light that we now view anti-miscegenation laws. Indeed, I suspect even most social conservatives realize this, which is why they are frantically trying to take advantage of popular opinion while it is still on their side.
I always marvel at this phenomenon. Why is it that each generation of social conservatives thinks that it will be the one to stop history's march? They never seem to realize the power or inevitability of the processes they're opposing.
Bush, of course, is under no such illusions, which makes his decision all the more strange. He knows the MPA won't pass. And as Steve Benen points out, he has to know that his 11th hour support of the amendment is unlikely to satisfy his fundamentalist base. And I doubt that Bush himself personally supports the MPA. So why bother endorsing it? Why publicly support a measure that future generations will overwhelming view as nothing more than a statement of ignorance and bigotry?
For someone who is so clearly hoping for historical redemption, this is certainly a counter-productive move.
UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan, here's what James Dobson had to say earlier this week on his radio show:
"... As you all very well know, marriage is under
vicious attack now, I think from the forces of hell itself."
Nice. No wonder Dobson and his followers are so willing to stand athwart history, yelling 'stop'. For them, the inexorable march of history = the forces of hell.
posted by A.L. at 11:19 PM
5 Comments:
Why? Because he would not be president now had Rove not exploited the bigotry behind the amendment at the federal and state level. He would have lost in 2004. And he knows that if he loses in 2006, he will never have a chance at redemption. History will have already overtaken him.
Wedge issues (grounded in bigotry) are all they have left....but unfortunately, such issues have often proven to be enough in the past due to the willingness of the press to ignore the bigotry and call them things like 'social conservatism."
I believe the current pandering by Mr. Frist is a clue to this. He's pulling out all the stops on this to shore up a very shaky base in 2006. Having Bush go along for the ride serves two purposes--it holds out the hope to the frenzied religious that a Repug Congress can make gains on their supposed core issues (provided the faithful return them to office), and it's a warning to Bush that he'd better rally the goofy ones, starts behaving like the godly fellow he claims to be and get them out to vote, or his bony ass--along with his future legacy--will be in deep shit.
No matter what Pelosi is saying now, if there's a House Dem majority, she is not going to be able to restrain two or three major Congressional hearings chaired by Conyers. And Bush will be left standing there with his putz--not his legacy--in his hand.
Bush doesn't want that. If there's still a Repug majority after November, 2006, things will slowly continue to get worse for him (because it's in his nature to fail), but Bush will be able slink off with his ego intact and go on to shilling for all his dad's buddies. If there's not, Conyers and a couple of other really irate Dems (Waxman, for example) will spend Bush's last two years playing rope-a-dope with him and most of his partners in crime. He won't have a legacy left for historians to reevaluate later.
"The progress of science and technology is incremental and inexorable."
The Dark Ages
"Similarly, free societies inevitably progress toward greater tolerance and greater equality."
The Weimar Republic
But faith in the inevitable triumph of their views and unshakeable confidence in their historical correctness are among the most endearing qualities of liberals.
Isn't it possible that something besides ignorance and bigotry exists in those who would deny gays the right to marry?
I tend to agree that this social change is likely to occur, and because the social institution of marriage is practically dead anyway, I don't see that it makes much difference one way or the other, but it hasn't escaped my notice that previous revolutions in our marriage laws and mores, such as no-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth, have entailed horrific social costs, along with the personal freedoms they brought.
I cannot believe that Bush is any more concerned about how history will judge him than he is about how he is currently viewed, because there are no consequences for him either way. Even if his poll numbers dropped below zero, HE IS STILL THE EXECUTIVE, and when we all wake up tomorrow he will still be unchecked in that role. When he he is no longer in office, he has increased his wealth and the wealth and influence of the people he is likely to mingle with. Even if he ever were to "slum around" by patronizing any of the places his detractors would frequent, his personal safety will still be insured at taxpayer expense.
The sooner you all realize that there is no shame for someone like this, the sooner you will be able to give up this fantasy that his goals have somehow been diminished by a crisis of conscience or a concern with how he is viewed.
good point, thebigerns...
Hey, wasn't Bush the same guy that said he didn't care about history, that by then, we would all be dead? I guess that's what happens when it's your only hope of salvaging some semblance of a presidency.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home