Like Jason Kuznicki, I didn't watch Bush's speech last night, but read it this morning. One of the charms of reading the speech in text is that you get to laugh knowing that such an inane speech was interrupted by applause approximately 14,873,994 times (the other advantage is that when you read one of Bush's speeches, as opposed to listening to it, the word "terrorist" has all three syllables in it). It would be absurdly easy to fisk the speech, take it apart claim by claim and show all the oversimplifications, lies by ommission and hypocrisies in it, and one could of course do it just as easily for Kerry's speech at the Democratic convention. The ridiculous jeremiads against "judicial activism" spoken by a man who just went to court to get a judge to declare entirely legal political advertisements illegal, thus gutting the first amendment; the simultaneous calls for a simplified tax system that closes the loopholes and for "opportunity zones" - which are loopholes; the silly claim to be "protecting marriage" from those who want to get married; the sheer audacity of trying to pose as a fiscal conservative having spent 4 years presiding over the astonishing growth of a deficit-financed federal government with the full cooperation of a Republican-controlled Senate and House and that included the largest new entitlement program since the Great Society of the 1960s, and without vetoing a single spending bill. Any reasonably bright 13 year old could point out these imbecilities. Andrew Sullivan absolutely nailed the fundamental cognitive dissonance at the center of the speech:
But conservatism as we have known it is now over. People like me who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people's lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Just remember all that Bush promised last night: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president. On this issue - on which I couldn't agree more - I have to say I don't believe him.
Much the same could be said of almost any such speech, of course. It takes astonishing chutzpah to get up there and deliver a speech that you know is full of contradictions, oversimplifications and outright falsehoods. What kind of human being is capable of doing so? That's the scariest question of all. Anyone who is capable of delivering speech after speech like this, and this goes equally for both Bush and Kerry, should not be allowed anywhere near the seat of power.
What is most discouraging about the speech, and all such speeches, is the response they get from listeners when they don't really say anything at all. And the lines that say the least are precisely the ones that get applause. How on earth does someone with an IQ higher than a piece of flank steak applaud for lines like these:
I believe every child can learn and every school must teach... No kidding. As opposed to whom, George?
I believe in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers and ranchers... Well I'm glad he cleared that up.
The story of America is the story of expanding liberty, an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. And this gets cheered by the very people who scream JUDICIAL TYRANNY and ACTIVIST JUDGES every time liberty is expanded.
This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side. Hey, did you hear that honey? This guy says he wants to put the government on the side of families and making a better living. What a relief.
I know that with the right skills, American workers can compete with anyone, anywhere in the world. Wow, that's stepping out on a political limb. This is Bush going back to his cheerleading days - "Give me a U. Give me an S. Give me an A."
You see what I mean? Just empty, meaningless phrase after empty, meaningless phrase. And not only could one say the same thing about Kerry's speech, one could find virtually identical phrases in that speech. Believe it or not, John Kerry also "believes in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers" and he thinks government should "be on the people's side" too. How mindless do the people at these conventions have to be to applaud over and over and over again for statements that say absolutely nothing? Are they just braindead automatons? And how on earth does one listen to one of these utterly pointless speeches and decide that this is the guy they wanna vote for? They might as well both just come out and say, "I'm in favor of good things and against bad things."
Postscript: I also think that Andrew Sullivan nailed perfectly, for me, the reasons why I absolutely cannot support Bush in any capacity. While I regard he and Kerry as equally dishonest and corrupt, there is one area in which there is a clear distinction between them. Bush, unlike Kerry, has to appease the people whose agenda I most despise. He has to endorse bigotry and the authority of government to enforce the twisted moral code of the religious right, and the result hurts people that I care about. Here is how Sullivan put it:
I will add one thing more. And that is the personal sadness I feel that this president who praises freedom wishes to take it away from a whole group of Americans who might otherwise support many parts of his agenda. To see the second family tableau with one family member missing because of her sexual orientation pains me to the core. And the president made it clear that discriminating against gay people, keeping them from full civic dignity and equality, is now a core value for him and his party. The opposite is a core value for me. Some things you can trade away. Some things you can compromise on. Some things you can give any politician a pass on. But there are other values - of basic human dignity and equality - that cannot be sacrificed without losing your integrity itself. That's why, despite my deep admiration for some of what this president has done to defeat terror, and my affection for him as a human being, I cannot support his candidacy. Not only would I be abandoning the small government conservatism I hold dear, and the hope of freedom at home as well as abroad, I would be betraying the people I love. And that I won't do.
I couldn't have said it better. Which is why I didn't.
- Log in to post comments