An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Bush Presidency: Are We a Nation of Sheep?
Please skip this post and continue on your way to the mall to return that hideous necktie that your mother-in-law gifted you if you don’t believe that President Bush has been a bad president, that the war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, and you don’t occasionally lie awake nights fearing for the future of the United States.
Still here? Good.
Given the dire straits that sentient Americans find themselves in, the big questions of New Year’s 2007 are:
* Have we become a nation of sheep?
* Can we survive two more years of a Bush presidency?
Please click here to read more.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
28 Responses to “The Bush Presidency: Are We a Nation of Sheep?”
“Have we become a nation of sheep?”
Did we ever stop being one? OK as full disclosure I’ll state that I am very young: My awareness of the existence of a president happened during Reagan and my very first political awareness at the end of Bush Senior. I haven’t exactly been around the block. However my impresion is that yes, we are a nation of sheep, and have been so for a very long time, it just becomes more patent with less able shepards. I don’t know that people were less complacent during Bush Senior or Clinton. I can say as a person that has lived both in Europe and the US that much of the sheep mentality I think stems from ignorance. The nightly news is almost content free in the US. In Spain, though hardly high-brow, we hear about things happening all over the world. An economic sumit in Brussels is more important than an ant epidemic in one of our interior provinces. That’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of well informed people in the US, and ignorant ones in Spain and the rest of the EU, but I think that Americans in general recieve a very diluted and filtered type of information, that doesn’t lend itself to political thinking.
As far as if we can survive two more years of Bush, sure we can. I really honestly can’t imagine that Bush’s handlers would allow him to offhandedly invade Iran. The whole of Congress would oppose it, even the Republicans (who have to think of re-election). Technically he could go solo, but I find it hard to imagine that happening.
Lynx:
” . . . it just becomes more patent with less able shepards.”
A great (and all too true) turn of phrase.
This is exactly the type of immoderate screed which I would expect from extremist news sites.
One of the refreshing things about Sen. Obama is that he knows how to disagree without being disagreeable. I recommend studying how he does this, and emulating his approach. You will get fewer “hell yeah!”s from an echo chamber, but you may actually learn how to persuade those who disagree with you.
Someone does not have to be a sheep to believe that President Bush is not a bad president. I would say that the approach of “if you don’t agree with me, go away” is actually more “sheep”-ish.
Yes…and yes because we have to. My brother is a typical example. Last week he wanted to talk politics. Being my brother and not some of the delicate sensibilities we have around here, I let go with a full on rant.
After it was over,he said”I agree with everything you just said, and you have been right at every turn, but you just lose me with your tone.”
My answer to that? Baahhh! Baaahhh!
Not just sheep, but glad to be that way.
Yes,we are a nation of sheep, but I think that is a testament to the mostly competent governments we have had in our lifetime. My political awakening (I have always been interested but not paying attention to the details) came during Katrina. That was when I realized that the government no longer was working to protect its citizens, and when I first knew that Bush was largely incompetent. Once I clued in, I became worried about other policies where the government seemed to be failing Americans-the environment, Iraq, nuclear threats from NK and Iran, hostile attitudes world-wide towards America, globalization, immigration—-you name it. Of course, while Bush gets a lion’s share of the blame, we also must chastise Congress, who has been asleep at the wheel for 6 years..
Having said all of that, I was greatly heartened by the election results. They were close to miraculous, given the monetary and incumbent advantages that the GOP had, yet the Democrats won back both houses. They didn’t lose a single seat, and won 6 out of 7 close Senate races. Almost none of the pundits predicted it. A Cinderella story. To me, it meant that a nation of sheep had woken up, and were finally paying attention to the fact that their country and their rights were being sold out from under them. Even though we do not have a draft, and have not had to sacrifice much for the war, the public still revolted against the president’s policy in Iraq.
It was only a midterm election, but it was one of the most important elections in the last decade.
Sean,
You don’t seem to accept that some of us disagree about the degree to which our nation is in peril under the Bush administration. Some of us agree that Bush has led the nation on a dangerous path, but we are still confident about our survival. Instead of asking why we disagree with you (or assuming that we are dumb sheep if we do), you may want to try making your case more clearly. Why is it that you are so concerned that we can’t survive? What evidence is there that our current situation is so much more dire than any other that our nation has faced? You seem convinced that other nations would have overthrown their leaders for committing the kinds of policy errors that you attribute to Bush. Can you give examples of other countries in modern times where this has occurred? Can you explain why you believe that the turmoil surrounding such a change in leadership should make us sleep more soundly at night than the current situation? Can you explain why you feel that Bush needs to be ousted, rather than calling upon our newly elected Congress to make some course corrections?
I agree with Kim,
The mistakes our current government and leaders make are accentuated by their overall historical competence. I didn’t realize how good a job our government was doing until the recent leaders showed me how bad it can get. I don’t think we are sheep as much as we are largely content.
A small problem with letting the sheep lead, as Aesop points out.
WHY SHOULD there always be this fear and slaughter between us?” said the Wolves to the Sheep. “Those evil-disposed Dogs have much to answer for. They always bark whenever we approach you and attack us before we have done any harm. If you would only dismiss them from your heels, there might soon be treaties of peace and reconciliation between us.” The Sheep, poor silly creatures, were easily beguiled and dismissed the Dogs, whereupon the Wolves destroyed the unguarded flock at their own pleasure.
Not saying it’s always right, but we elect people to make decisions, and give them nearly Roman Consular powers. Following them while lending our voices and abilities don’t make us sheep, it makes us good citizens.
CStanley:
Nothing in my post hinted at, let alone said outright, that there is lock-step agreement about the degree to which the nation is in peril.
Your glass would seem to be half full. That’s fine. Have a big sip for those of us whose glass is nearly empty.
The historic record is rich with examples of national leaders who were peacefully deposed through no-confidence votes, as well as those who were ousted through putsches and coupes d’etat. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for the former; the latter is unthinkable.
As the record of the past six years abundantly shows, George Bush is a dangerous man. Ask the families of the 3,000-plus soldiers killed in Iraq (more than died in the 9/11 terror attacks) how full their glasses are?
If you believe that the new Democratic majority can make substantive course corrections, then you’re drinking Kool Aid.
Kim,
I think you overestimate the effect that an administration can have on the outcome of any particular government program. 99% of the governmental individuals working on the Katrina response were civil servants. They will be around no matter what the adminsitration is. Claiming that Democrats will always be efficent is getting dangerously close to “water carrying.”
Are you claiming that the DC public schools are efficent, inexpensive, and turning out a great product? Are you claiming that Detroit is a well run city, are you claiming that the “Big Dig” was a governmental success?
Sean,
Yes, I note that you did not write that there is lock step agreement over the degree of peril, but what you did write implies that those who don’t see the danger are behaving as mindless sheep. And your response, while clever, is a bit evasive.
“The historic record is rich with examples of national leaders who were peacefully deposed through no-confidence votes, as well as those who were ousted through putsches and coupes d’etat. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for the former; the latter is unthinkable.”
I asked for examples, not because I’m doubtful that they exist, but because I would like to see a side by side comparison of situations then and now. My argument is that our Constitutional checks and balances can and will work, while you seem to think otherwise. I think if you would actually go through the exercise of examining the historical record, you might have more confidence of the survival of our republic.
CStanley:
An amplification or three . . .
There are no parallels in U.S. history to the havoc wrecked by the Bush administration. The misdeeds of the (Andrew) Johnson, Van Buren, Polk and Coolidge administrations are small beer by comparison.
I did not suggest that the system of checks and balance cannot work, but please recall that the Bush administration has fought ferociously to neuter the constitutionally manadated responsibilities of the Judicial and Legislative branches through a power grab that is unprecedented in American history.
As to whether Americans have had more or less confidence in the survival of the republic, I dunno. I would imagine that many Northerners feared that it might not survive in the darkest days of the Civil War. Was the body politic more engaged then than now? That question is unanswerable since women and blacks were denied the vote, among other factors.
No, I’m not claiming that Democrats are always competent. DC is a city like many with high crime and poverty. It wouldn’t matter much who was in power there.
The election was important because the
Republican majority sat by and did nothing while Bush fiddled and Rome burned. Other administrations looked almost masterful in comparison—both Democrat AND Republican.
And yes, I admit that a lot of the dysfunction is due to civil servants. But FEMA functioned under James Lee Witt and Clinton. Bush reorganized FEMA into the Dept of Homeland Security- decreasing its power and funding.
During Katrina he was on vacation and remained for several more days- seemingly detached and disengaged during the worst natural disaster in our history. Strangely enough, he managed to fly back to DC during the Terry Schiavo “emergency”.
Whoever heads the government takes credit when it works well and the blame when it doesn’t. When it doesn’t work,usually there is a seismic shift, as we saw in 2006.
The U.S. Constitution provides for bloodless revolts, coups, and no-confidence votes every two years. They’re called elections.
To some, the sky is always falling when they’re not in charge. And sometimes even when they are.
Well said, Tully.
I think the constitutional checks can and will work, but only if the public plays watchdog. We had 6 years of little or no oversight, but now will have possible overcorrection with congressional hearings starting this week. So, my faith in the system has been restored.
Kim:
I fear that the congressional hearings that you cite will be neither a corrective to the imbalances of the previous six years nor a genuine accounting of the Legislative branch’s oversight failures.
Those failures necessarily include another flock of sheep — the Democratic minority — and I do not expect that the Democratic congressional “leaders” from that sad era will be called to testify about their own failures.
Well- there were certainly failures among the Democratic leadership-most importantly the vote authorizing force in Iraq.(Some- like Tom Daschle are no longer there.) But they have offered opposition on some of the abuses of power and other failed policies. They may be able to shed some light on contracting graft. I think we need to give the system a chance to work.
Kim:
Agreed.
Shaun,
James Buchanan, who dithered around and failed to act during the successional crisis that lead this country into the civil war that REALLY nearly destroyed this nation, and whereby nearly 1 million soldiers died DIRECTLY as a result of the war, and many, many more civilians died indirectly from starvation and property destruction, especially in the south, (nobody has even a clue as to that number) is ‘small potatoes’, and ranks higher than Bush?
Nixon, who used the FBI and IRS as his playtoy, was caught burgling and was the only president in the history of this nation to resign scores higher than Bush? Come now, my friend, really. Bush may be bad, but the worst he has yet to capture.
In fact, according to most surveys of Presidential Scholars, he is pretty well in the middle of the pack, just below Bill Clinton, strangely enough. This nation has survived much larger crisis and it will survive this one.
Great post, Shaun.
We have been misled, and the damage is deep, critically so I think. With a compliant media, which serves as a spokesman for the administration, the electorate has little in the way of reality based news coverage to go on. With clever slogan making and arguments that are both divisive and manipulative, we have been tricked into voting against our own interests.
While demonizing the concept of paying for government services “tax and spend” we have been deceived into betraying our own children. Certainly both parties are responsible to some extent, but the Republicans have been truly reprehensible. Bush said “we believe Americans can spend their money better than the government,” Then he proceeded to give away our children’s future to the already rich. The $350 million in direct costs for the Iraq war is almost literally rounding error compared to the $8.7 trillion debt (and still counting) that we are passing on to our children. If you think both parties are responsible for this, think again. Take a look at this graph, compiled from White House figures, yes George W. Bush White House figures.
Additionally, though I too am angered by the Democrats going along with the war resolutions, and any of them who supported the erosion of our civil rights, I say this in their defense: I watched Colin Powell march out satellite photos alleged by the intelligence community (or so we were told) to be sophisticated mobile weapons labs, a startlingly precise accounting of the numbers of liters of anthrax and nerve gas in the Iraqi arsenal. If this was the same manipulated and devious “evidence” handed to Democratic legislators, I can’t blame them for voting the way they did.
Well said, Greendreams! While I am optimistic that we will come out of this in one piece- there has been a lot of damage done to those who count on this country for a stable and prosperous future. I do blame the Democrats for standing by, but blame Republicans and their self-serving agenda so much more. They were about holding power for its own sake and that’s about it.
Buddy:
I would paraphrase you and say that Bush is bad and, as my post notes, the worst may be get to come.
Buddy:
My bad. I was so busy pulling wings off of flies that a typo crept into my comment.
What I meant to say is that “the worst may be YET to come.”
Lynx hit it right on the head. 99.9% of people are sheep- in politics, at work, in life, love, and war. People do not think.
Look at how, on blogs, so many people talk past one another. A says a, B says b, C says C, and that A & B are dumb asses. B says fuck you to the racist C. A says he agrees with C. D sticks a finger. Then E asks why can’t we all just get along? Then F says all the prior posters are idiots and E is the worst yet.
Shaun: ‘There are no parallels in U.S. history to the havoc wrecked by the Bush administration. The misdeeds of the (Andrew) Johnson, Van Buren, Polk and Coolidge administrations are small beer by comparison.’
Sorry, but the dismantling of Reconstruction’s gains, the blind eye toward the KKK’s ride, the return to spoils politics, and the greenlighting of political machines all make Andrew Johnson a worse Prez than Bush. Yes, W has 2 more years to go farther down, and- by God- he may just pull it out, but he’s not the worst yet. Hell, with LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan, he’s not even definitively the worst Prez of my Lifetime!
LBJ’s bodycount was much higher- both in troops and civilians, Nixon upped the ante and brought us Watergate and the subversion of the Constitution. Reagan flat out lied to Congress and ran a Shadow Gov’t that even believers in Area 51 wd be shocked at, he decimated a generation of inner city youth with his social sevrices cuts, he showed open disdain for the working class with the PACO disaster, resulting in the most dangerous decade in aviation in fifty years, he balloned the deficit, % wise even worse than Bush has, so I say- GET A GRIP!
W is BAD, but when has there been even a GOOD Prez? Look at the sheep for answers:
http://www.cosmoetica.com/B142-DES91.htm
B142-DES91
Home Of The Meek: The Cowardly American Electorate
Copyright © by Dan Schneider, 4/10/04
Well it depends on what criteria you are using to judge a presidency. LBJ did escalate a war that we couldn’t win, but fought a different war -the war on poverty and the civil rights movement. He advanced the cause of African-Americans with comprehensive civil rights legislation and the Voting Rights act of 1964, and pushed the programs of the Great Society through Congress. He had the grace to pass many sleepless nights in the WH, because of his torment over Viet Nam, and chose not to run for reelection because of it. (GW never has to worry about demonstrators on Pennsylvania Avenue because it was closed off to the public after 9/11).
Nixon was a disaster domestically, and like Bush was secretive and had an imperial presidency. But he did make diplomatic strides with Brezhnev and opened the door to relations with China.
Reaganomics reminds me of Bush’s economic program, and he did cut social services while cutting taxes. Like Bush, he pandered to his base of wealthy Republicans. But his talks with Gorbachev and his military build-up did help lead to the fall of Communism. Many in Eastern Europe owe him a debt of gratitude (though the policies of many presidents as well as their own poor decisions actually led to the breakup of the Soviet empire)
What achievements does W have to point to? The vast enrichment of investors holding stock in KBR or Halibritton? The numerous medals of freedom handed out to those whose mistakes have cost this country dearly? Major milestones in nuclear development met by Iran and N.K.? The only real accomplishment I can see is that we have not been attacked domestically since 9/11. Not much of a legacy.
Now for a sheepish comment- we’ll be just fine. I heard the “will we survive?” commentary during the Nixon and Reagan years. We survived nicely. The same thing will happen post-GWB. The US is a wonderfully resilient and powerful nation, no matter what the naysayers think.
Kim, I said, ‘Hell, with LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan, he’s not even definitively the worst Prez of my Lifetime!’
That means he could be. And I do grant that LBJ and Nixon had domestic accomplishments. But saying Reagan was the reason the Commie sfell is flat out wrong. I saw Al Haig on C-Span a night or two ago, and he even laughed at the assertion. Reagan was a total cipher. His domestic policies led to the 87-92 Depression. Unlike Nixon and LBJ, however, his bodycount was low. Bush’s is low in comparison to Nixon & LBJ, so while he’s like Reagan domestically, he’s not in a league w LBJ and Nixon….yet.
I dislike W as a Prez, but do we really want him to sink to the worst in another 2 years? He may get there, but at what cost?
As for us not being attacked since 9/11- so what? We were not attacked domestically like that for 225 years. His blunder- and Condo’s, Cheney’s, and Rumsfeld, was incompetence at its worst. Last night I saw Frontline’s doc on Cheney. My God! Now, he’s definitely the worst VP!