A lyrical look at how progressives need George Bush

Over at the Paragraph Farmer, you can read an almost lyrical article examining the way in which Progressives desperately needed George Bush to give meaning and shape to their lives, and get a sense of the problems they’ll have when, as will inevitably happen in 2009, he leaves the political scene.  Here’s just a sample to whet your appetite:

Anger is the second stage on the continuum of response to trauma, and a textbook expression of that emotion was offered by the two towns in Vermont that voted earlier this month to indict the president on charges of “violating the Constitution.” While Green Mountain State activists high-five each other over pints of “Chunky Monkey” and “Cherry Garcia,” their allies in the mainstream media play a game of guilt by association, because the anger they feel toward President Bush often extends even to things that involve him only peripherally. For example, former newscaster Bree Walker makes her home in California, but bought property in Texas that used to belong to Cindy Sheehan, and promptly professed herself appalled by billboards that welcome people to Crawford by describing it as the “Hometown of President George W. Bush.”

Bushian influence is a pernicious thing to pundits of her ilk. Walker, not a Texas Ranger, now promises to “stand by with gallons of white paint and enough brushes and rollers for every man, woman and child who’ll join us in eradicating what the folks hereabouts may someday come to see as an obscenity and smear on the good name of Crawford.” If the townsfolk don’t rush to her paint brushes, Walker will probably trade Diet Dr. Pepper for a soft drink with no roots in the Lone Star State. As a subheading in Newsweek magazine recently screeched, “Texas produces more carbon emissions than most countries, but the state government and business community don’t seem too concerned.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Danny Lemieux says

    It’s a good question – who will they hate next? My guess is that some, on reflection, will be embarrassed by what they let themselves become through their Bush-Rove-Cheney derangement syndrome.

    Others just have a need to hate…I still come across people who get foam-flecked when the name “Nixon” is mentioned, even though they can’t tell me about him (for crying out loud, this was 30 years ago). So, who will they next make the focus of their paranoid fantasies? McCain? Sasquatch? I would like to think “Islamic Jihadis” but that would be wildly unrealistic.

  2. says

    The word “hate” is not a synonym for “change.” Face it, the world was already in motion when we got here. And everything we do or say confirms or rejects what’s going on. Either we like the status quo, or we don’t. Progressives don’t like what going on, and they don’t “need” to hate someone to see that there are problems that need solutions.

  3. Deana says

    You’re right, Helen, they don’t need to hate someone. But they do.

    There are few “progressives” who are willing to:

    1) CALMLY and coherently state their beliefs as well as solutions to problems that exist; and
    2) Provide hard evidence that forms the basis of their beliefs.

    Again, this goes back to what was discussed on this blog recently: folks on the left operate on emotion (including hate); rarely on reason.

    Take the “progressive” reaction to anything associated with President Bush. I could completely respect a person who, again, calmly and coherently states why they disagree with his decisions, ideas, etc. I have yet to meet one of those people. Instead, progressives tend to spit, sputter, and turn red in the face the moment President Bush is even mentioned. They can scarcely form a sentence, such is their anger. Instead of outlining the policies they don’t like, they just state over and over again, “He’s so stupid.” “Everyone hates us because of that idiot.” And on and on and on . . . .

    Needless to say, it makes for a frustrating conversation.

    Deana

  4. rockdalian says

    While Green Mountain State activists high-five each other over pints of “Chunky Monkey” and “Cherry Garcia,”

    Why, oh why did they have to drag Cherry Garcia into this. That is my favorite guilty pleasure.

  5. Ymarsakar says

    I have yet to meet one of those people

    Or you meet them only from those that support some of Bush’s policies.

    Instead of outlining the policies they don’t like,

    Or rather they outline policies they don’t like, but they aren’t ever the policies Bush is advocating or instituting.

  6. Ymarsakar says

    I have yet to meet one of those people

    Or you meet them only from those that support some of Bush’s policies.

    Instead of outlining the policies they don’t like,

    Or rather they outline policies they don’t like, but they aren’t ever the policies Bush is advocating or instituting.

  7. Danny Lemieux says

    Kudos, Deana. That you even bother to engage such “progressives” in rational discussion shows that you have not lost your optimism on the human condition.

    I would be very careful about how you attach yourself to the term “progressive”, HelenL. I appreciate your blog postings that you are a well-meaning person with a big heart, but…

    The Progressive movement was a late-19th Century movement that made unholy alliances with dictatorship and eugenics. Jonah Goldberg makes a well-documented cases in his book, “Liberal Fascism”, that it was the American (not European) progressive movement, much of it sadly rooted in my alma mater (U. of Wisconsin) that laid the philosophical foundations of Hitler’s race theories. It also motivated one Margaret Sanger to found Planned Parenthood as a tool for culling society of “undesirables” which, at the time, was a largely euphemism for black people that I know hold a special place in your heart.

    The Progressives were not nice people.

Leave a Reply