Selective Memory
In his song,The Boxer, Paul Simon sang, “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.” Frank Bruni points out, in this morning’s New York Times, that this human frailty is particularly true in the case of the Bushes — father and son — and the place they hold in the present Republican narrative: In the case of Bush the Younger, Bruni writes that:
They seldom mention Bush positively. They seldom mention Bush negatively. They also never mention the Bush before Bush — the other slice of bread in the Clinton sandwich — and have thus turned the father and the son almost wholly into ghosts.
You’d think Ronald Reagan, who is invoked incessantly, was the last Republican president, and you’d think he was not only a flawless chief executive but a sinless adherent to current Republican dogma.
The eight years when the last Republican president occupied the White House have gone down the memory hole. That loss of memory is quite purposeful:
[The] debt has indeed risen at a terrifying pace over the last three years, but for reasons that have a great deal to do with … George W. Bush. The perpetuation of his tax cuts, the continuation of his new prescription drug benefit, the management of his wars and the interest payments on debt that he accumulated account for a crucial share of the additional sum Obama has amassed. And while the details of Obama’s stimulus spending and bailouts can and should be seriously questioned, the need for action stemmed largely from a severe economic downturn that began under 43.
Even more interesting is how Bush the Elder has been air brushed from the Republican pitch. His fiscal record is the exact opposite of his son’s:
FOR real, brave fiscal responsibility, Republicans should refer to and lionize the 41st president, the other George Bush. Much of his record, including his decision to exit Iraq after removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, shimmers in retrospect.
At great political cost, he allowed a tax increase appropriate to the fiscal circumstances. More than a few economists believe that it set the stage for the boom of the Clinton years. But 41’s budgetary approach is less likely to draw attention from present-day Republicans than 43’s. It runs counter to the party’s anti-tax obsessions. It’s anathema.
Instead, to the uninformed it appears that the last Republican president was Ronald Reagan. But, even in his case, Republican memory is highly selective:
As one prominent party strategist laughingly reminded me this week, Reagan allowed a dozen tax increases by some counts and measures; put Sandra Day O’Connor, an eventual disappointment to conservatives, on the Supreme Court; and signed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform act, which gave amnesty to three million illegal immigrants. The liberal in Obama must be green with envy.
The truth is that neither the Bushes nor Reagan fit the present narrative. Republicans are cherry picking evidence to fit their thesis. It may work as an advertising ploy. But it’s disconnected from reality and the truth.
6 Responses to “Selective Memory”
None have openly sought a Bush endorsement, whether it be white bread or wheat bread. Still though, it is clearly the media’s decision not to bring up dubya or dad when bringing inquiry. One wonders why, but there you have it; factoids unrealized.
I read Bruni’s piece before this post. His points are very good. Reading Owen’s post reminded me of a question I’d like to see put to the apparently virulently anti-tax Republicans. Is there any point where you are willing to say “Enough tax cuts. Any more would be irresponsible.”? Look at what passes for economic proposals in the current crop. Tax cut after tax cut for people who haven’t been “job creators” in a meaningful way for years. When they put forth these proposals they should be asked how that changes things given the current de facto tax rates for the wealthy.
The Republicans are telling the world that we are over burdened with debt and now it is time to make cuts in spending for rectification. The Republicans say that our excesses are in supporting our elderly by wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans are saying that our excesses are in supporting our poor and unemployed by cutting basic life sustaining welfare, food stamp programs, and, Medicaid. Not to mention destroying opportunity by cutting education support for to third world levels.
They want to cut these basics, yet it has been the Defense department that has received the massive increases in funding which has caused the debt in the first place. We don’t need this massive amount of defense spending anymore. Defense spending can be reduced back to an equitable year 2000 level.
Unfortunately the debt would still remain so taxes must also be raised, hopefully upon those whom can afford it most easily. Not so say the Republicans. Don’t tax the rich because they are job creators, say the Republicans. There are no jobs! The, “job creators”, have created no jobs and they have been enjoying the Bush tax cuts for nearly a decade!
What fool would believe what Republicans are saying? What absolute fool?
“Republicans are cherry picking evidence to fit their thesis. It may work as an advertising ploy. But it’s disconnected from reality and the truth.”
That has been the republican MO going back at least 20 years. If not for strategic selective memory loss, heavy use of propaganda, and connections the GOP would have no more viability today than do the mugwumps.
As for the absence of the word Bush in the republican mind, I’ve commented on this often. They don’t want to be reminded of how incredibly damaging his administration was, especially in light of how much they showered him (and his cronies) with love and how much they defended him throughout his ill-fated reign – this despite all the warnings from moderates and progressives almost from the beginning.
Unfortunately, the mindset that allowed the GOP to be so destructive in the first place is still with us – in spades. The only thing they’ve learned from Bush/Cheney is how to pretend they never existed.
The disregard the GOP has for Bush the Elder is one of the reasons I’ve given up on them. Sure, he was not a charismatic President (his lack of empathy for the common man during an economic downturn was his only real failing), but he WAS fiscally responsible and he WAS absolutely right-headed with regards to the Persian Gulf war and he WAS very presidential despite some faux-pas ESPECIALLY compared to Clinton and Bush the Lesser.
If folks would stop the race to the bottom of right-wing spite-filled rhetoric, perhaps they’d realize this.
While I am ready to lay a great deal of blame on the younger Bush for our situation the last few years, its nearing the end of Obama’s first term and its time for the Dems to start admitting they are part of the problem. They had a chance to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which in my mind would have gone a great way towards fixing things, but they didn’t. As usual the Dems were spineless in the hopes of helping themselves get re-elected. Also, there are several other important battles that the Dems have largely rolled over in the face of fierce GOP stonewalling.
I think the public is aware of this and will correctly put the blame on those whose main goal has been to see Obama only get one term, but I am no longer going to say its all Bush’s fault and Obama’s hands are tied just because he hasn’t until recently decided to start throwing some elbows.
Btw, is anyone else concerned that Obama flip flopped on vetoing the Defense Spending Bill? That we can now be arrested without trial as long as the accusation is terrorism? Lets admit this is a bi-partisan issue because it got through the senate with a 93-7 vote. I want to see some threads and anger on this. Write your representatives! And lets get the Supreme Court on this before we get someone who doesn’t mind locking political enemies up without trial voted in as President.