The Sword and the Olive Branch

 The biggest reason populist conservatives are so unpopular.

 (I’m determined to get through this one without using the “L” word).

George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are the most despised elected Republicans in recent memory.  Even though his Presidency is over, George Bush’s most extreme opponents are fantasizing about trying his administration for war crimes.  Sarah Palin is still kicked around in certain circles and falsely portrayed as the reason the disloyal, uncertain, and uninspiring presidential candidate John McCain lost the 2008 election.  

It’s plain to everyone that there exists a core group of Americans who sneer down at conservatives simply for the sin of being right of center, but Bush, Palin, and the populist conservatives just like them are hated with a vigor that would be more appropriately directed at someone who suffocates infants in the maternity ward.  Anyone strolling through the internet last fall would have found it difficult not to trip over mean-spirited hecklers purposefully spreading malicious rumors such as the lie that Sarah Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent.  There are many reasons for this, but the biggest one is that both of these Republicans are too normal.   Neither Bush nor Palin seem to make any effort to portray themselves as part of some insufferably articulate, tea-tootling ruling class. 

The historian Robert Greene shares a story in The 48 Laws of Power about the last King of France, Louis-Philippe.  He came to power during the 1830 July Revolution after Charles X was forced to go into exile to avoid being murdered by revolutionary zeal.  Louis-Philippe carried himself not like a king, but like the French middle class.  He constantly downplayed his status, treating guests in his palace as if they were in his position.  In addition, he wasn’t a friend of the nobility.  He didn’t speak their language or adopt their symbols.  He called himself the “King of the French” as opposed to the traditional title “King of France.” 

Eventually Louis-Philippe’s everyman act wore on the French, who started to look down on him.  It got to the point where the powerful banker James Rothschild publically berated the King for being late.  After riots broke out over electoral reform, the “King of the French” rewarded the rioter’s violent behavior by firing his prime minister and appointing a replacement with more revolutionary sensibilities.  Predictably, this emboldened the mob, and eventually they surrounded his palace.  In the tradition of French leaders confronted by political extremism, Louis-Philippe tucked in his tail and fled to England, leaving the country to fend for itself.  It turns out that even people clamoring for equality at all costs don’t want a ruler just like them. 

Flash forward to Bush and Palin now.  As a result of their plain-spoken manner, liberals like to pretend that George and Sarah are so dumb it embarrasses America.  This is simply poor man’s elitism.  Both Republicans were popular governors, far more successful on a state level than a national one.  After governing the lone star state, George Bush was elected twice as President of the United States, which took a lot of guile, especially considering that he was re-elected after starting an immensely unpopular war.  Even the stingiest parent would be proud of their child if he or she grew up to become president.  Surely being the son of another former President helped Bush achieve what he has, but no all rich children are smart enough to make the most out of their privilege.  Has anyone who doesn’t own a police scanner heard of Al Gore III? 

As for Palin, she led a complex proposal that ensured that when 35 trillion feet of cubic gas under Alaska’s North Slope comes to market, it would allow for competition and growth, have clear and objective measures of progress, and preserve Alaska’s sovereignty.  She then ensured that the proposal would get voted on.  And if that doesn’t convince you, even the Democratic feminist and former editor in chief of Ms. Magazine, Elaine Lafferty, concedes that Palin is “very smart,” and feminists don’t concede anything to the right.  Yet even though it can probably be demonstrated that Bush and Palin are more happy and successful than most of the population, their opponents are still able to portray them as barely one step up from Joy Behar. 

Of course Bush and Palin aren’t fantastically stupid, but they’re portrayed as such because they’re too much like the Americans we see every day.  More than even real tyranny, the mere appearance of commonality is something people don’t want in a leader.  People like to imagine they’re being led by the best and the brightest.  We don’t want to know that our presidents, governors, and judges are just like us, only more educated and driven.  We feel safer pretending that our elected officials aren’t capable of making the same dumb mistakes we make.  Politicians aren’t supposed to have ideological biases or speak like regular folk, because no likes to deferring to their equal. 

This is why being articulate is so important in politics.  The largest blow to Sarah Palin’s image hit home when the media exposed her lack of aristocracy, for the privileged class is trained to have a least talking points ready for all situations.  As for G.W., his speech flubs are proof that our politicians are human, which is why they’re called “Bushisms” and obsessed over by the mediocre masses.   How can the government be responsible for our well-being when our leaders are no better than we are? 

Bush and Palin’s penchant for regular, unpolished communication not only sounds dumb to some people, but it seems inauthentic.  Again, the presumption that politicians are better than everyone else is the culprit.  When political figures make obvious attempts the act like someone they’re not, let’s say they pop out of tanks even though it’s obvious they’re not military types, it gives the impression that they have no self-respect.  Instead of selling you their ideas in their language, they pretend to be in tune with people they share little to nothing in common with.   So when Sarah Palin speaks in plain English, as opposed to iambic pentameter, it seems as if she doesn’t respect her position.  George Bush’s casual approach to the speechmaking (he’s often glib and tends to speak in platitudes) made him look un-presidential.  They both ignore when I now humbly deem the first rule of democracy: no one wants to give power to someone they can’t pretend is better than he or she is. 

In addition to that, no one likes being talked down to.  If a politician starts adopting your southern accent when they never had one before, their appeal to regional ties is so obvious they may as well be using baby talk.  “HOW Y’ALL DOING?  I SURE HATE THEM RICH PEOPLE.”  Thus, Bush and Palin’s plain language risks offending people because it seems condescending.  Regular Americans don’t know politicians well enough to trust that their common lingo is sincere.  Ironically, this pretty much guarantees that a working-class person will never be elected by the working class.  No one believes Barack Obama is representative of his constituency, unless they’re only counting professors who make six figures.

The lessons conservatives can learn from misguided populism are many.  One, don’t act as if you’re a lower class than you really are, it’s condescending and smacks of insincerity.  People don’t mind if you’re true to yourself and your own culture, as long as you demonstrate a respect for their values.  Two, don’t be inarticulate, it convinces people you’re dumb even if all the remaining evidence suggests otherwise.  To have any chance of winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012, Sarah Palin will have work hard to convince Americans she’s not the dope her opponents gleefully portray her as.  The most important part of that will be learning how to act like part of the ruling class.  I’m no advocate for shallowness, but when it comes to persuading the masses, appearances may actually be everything—who a politician is isn’t nearly as important to his success as who the people think he is.  Three, if you ever become King of France, don’t preclude Elvis’s look. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: Bush, communication, palin
Posted in Miscellaneous | No Comments »

Congratulations, Barack Obama has been elected President.  I mean that whole-heartedly.  If our representative democracy placed Mr. Obama in power, I respect that decision.  “President Obama” isn’t a pleasant thing to say, but I’ll have at least four years to get used to it. 

Now I hear it’s time for America to heal and become united.  There’s no more room for partisanship; the world’s become much too dangerous for politics as usual to be anything but destructive, right?  Now we should all open the door and collectively begin a new era of American politics, equipped with fresh ideas.  As Obama’s inauguration speech implies, this country should let go of the ”stale” right-wing/left-wing dichotomy, and unite in laying the foundation for a prosperous American future.

Do you agree with that?  Of course you do.  Now that your guy is in charge, the polarity strategy is a threat to your power, not a path to it.  But where were your calls for unity under George W. Bush?  Sure, there was a week right after 9-11 where his opponents bit their tongues and put partisan bickering aside, but now you’re even complaining that gave him a free pass to push his “war agenda” through. 

It would be easier to believe your affection for unity is sincere if you would have acted a bit differently at the turn of the millennium.  With all due respect I take offense to your cynical appeals to our better nature.  You see, the biggest reason America was a polarized nation after George W. Bush was elected is because Democrats threw an eight-year temper tantrum during his term.  George Bush didn’t divide America, you did.  Please don’t shut me out; let me explain. 

George Bush isn’t the polarizing figure you think he is.  He’s an open, self-depreciating, and dare I say likeable fellow.  Even reliably left-wing sources such as Ted Kennedy and PBS concede that he’s personable.   Sure, he wears his religion on his sleeve, but Christians aren’t inherently mean-spirited.  Remember that Bush didn’t win two elections by promising to be strident.  He ran on a platform of big government, “compassionate conservatism,” and he pretty much ran the country that way, spending like an Obama voter who just got paid by ACORN to register in 13 different counties.  He dramatically increased not only defense spending, but threw barrels of money at education and even an expensive prescription drug plan.  

You hated him despite all this, but he didn’t hate you back.   Chances are you barely registered on his radar.  Yet somehow the bizarre way he says “nuclear” was supposed to justify undisguised disgust.  One of Bush’s best moments came in 2004 when at an annual Radio and Television Correspondents dinner, when he joked during his slideshow presentation, “…those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.”  This is remarkable because the man took one of his most embarrassing moments and not only drew attention to it, but made light of it (I aspire to be that good natured).  Obviously the opposing Democratic Party didn’t see it that way.  Being his political opponents, they ignored Bush’s good humor and instead said that he wasn’t taking the issue seriously enough, which is to say bland enough to be printed in a high school textbook. 

In stark contrast to an affable President who has enough charity and self-esteem to earnestly poke fun at his own self, you drove around for years with Kerry/Edwards ’04 stickers on your car, clearly communicating the message that you reject George Bush and everyone who supported him.  Eight years after the fact, you still complain about the outcome of the 2000 election.  You even set up a passive-aggressive website apologizing to the rest of the world for Bush’s re-election.  You compiled lists of “Bushisms” knowing full well that every public speaker, even President Obama, can be made to look like a doofus if you isolate their linguistic mishaps.  Out of your own accord, you did everything you could to disassociate yourself from Republicans, conservatives, and what is colloquially known as “red state America.” 

George Bush didn’t call you stupid every day for eight years, but you did it to him.  George Bush never protested in front of your home, harassed your children, and mocked you as someone’s puppet as you did to members of his administration.  The neocons didn’t experiment with what Michelle Malkin calls “Assassination chic,” an undoubtedly well-adjusted industry which deals in perverse fantasies of George Bush’s murder.  You can disagree with every single executive decision he made, but what kind of unresolved emotional trauma produces the kind of person who revels in the death of someone they merely disagree with?  

In the dawn of the new Obama administration, you have placed the responsibility for unifying the country exclusively on the shoulders of your opponents, just as you’ve done in the past.  You blamed George Bush for not conforming to your ideas about the Iraq war, without budging from your anti-war stance.  Likewise, you’re calling for the American right to fall in line behind a leader who promises to enact several policies which are likely to be completely antithetical to conservative values.  If America in fact unites under Barack Obama, it won’t be because he’s a “transformational figure,” but because you won’t be waging a cultural filibuster against every program he proposes.  Sure you want America to unify, but you conveniently leave out that you will only allow that to happen under the condition that your mandate is being driven.  Your calls for unity are a sham, designed to shame your opponents into silence. If by some miracle John McCain had become President, you would be perpetually agitating Republicans in abject rejection of an America united under a moderate conservative.  

To summarize:  You did everything you legally could to undermine the prospect of an America united behind George W. Bush.  Now that your guy’s in power, all of a sudden we’re living in a post-partisan era?  Sorry, dear.  The chickens will be coming home to roost this year.  But I will pay homage to your behavior under George W. Bush’s presidency (during a time of war, no less). 

Out of nothing but protest, I’m going to drive for four years with a McCain/Palin sticker on my car’s rear bumper.  I’m going to laugh unnaturally at Obama’s speech flubs, even though just like Bush’s, they’ll rarely be funny.  I’m going to proudly sport t-shirts that say “F*ck Obama.”  I’m going to frivolously accuse him and his administration of crimes against humanity.  If Barack Obama passes on bad information in good faith, like Bush did with WMDs, I’m going to insist that he was lying instead of misinformed, clinging to badly worded documents which “prove” my point. 

Actually, I’m probably only going to do the bumper sticker.  I’ve learned from watching you that stewing in hatred for eight years can make an opposing administration feel much more hellish than it truly is.  While you’re pleading for unity (lest someone undermine your political power) I’ll be calling for perspective.  Like most other conservatives, I’ll support President Obama when it makes sense because my country’s well-being is partly dependent on his performance.  But I will also be reminding Americans that he’s not a post-partisan pragmatist, but a charismatic leftist.  Barack Obama’s ideas aren’t new; they can be traced back to a long-standing philosophical heritage known as “liberalism.”  Pretending otherwise is patently anti-intellectual.  Whether you like it or not, the left/right dichotomy will be more relevant under Obama’s presidency, because it’s perfectly suited for shedding light on the nature of his ideals. 

I harbor no illusions about the effect of this very personal letter.  After reading this, you will undoubtedly defend your blinding hatred of America’s 43rd President, while refusing to acknowledge the glaring contradiction manifest in your behavior under Republican rule and the cloying requests for unity which you employ now that a man who reflects your sensibilities is arguably the most powerful person in the world.  I reject your unity, because it doesn’t mean dialogue and bipartisan compromise; it means get out of your way so you can “remake” America without having to deal with your critics. With all due respect, I refuse to sacrifice my conscience on the altar of your vision, even if it makes me a “cynic.”

Tags: Bush, Obama, post-partisan, Unity
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »