|
|
January 6, 2006Kyoto? Buster’s got a theory; haters will hate itThe boy had to bring in to school an article about environmentalism - it could be about anything - about “global warming” or endagered species, or the Kyoto protocols, anything. They had to read the piece and write up a commentary on it. Extra credit. Buster used this excellent piece by James K. Glassman, which I had actually linked to back in August: In a surprise move that caught Europe’s smug moralists and the environmental movement’s noisy extremists flatfooted, the United States announced in Vientiane, Laos, last week that it was joining five other nations - China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia — in a new pact that offers a refreshing and effective alternative route to tackling the problem of climate change. While given short shrift by the puzzled media, this is a big deal, in many ways. First, it breaks the climate-change deadlock. This is the agreement that responsible scientists and public officials have been seeking since the failure of the Kyoto Protocol became evident at the global warming conclave in Delhi two years ago. Call it “Beyond Kyoto” - Way Beyond Kyoto. Third, the agreement comprises countries that account for 45% of the world’s population and about half the world’s economic output and greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide, implicated in raising surface temperatures…. Fourth and most important, it takes a pro-growth approach to combating the possibility of global warming in the century ahead. The new Beyond Kyoto agreement focuses on innovative technology as the antidote, not only to carbon-dioxide emissions but also to dirty air and economic deprivation…” Never heard about all this, I bet? Neither had Buster’s teacher, who is pretty well-informed. It’s another one of those stories that just wasn’t considered worth covering by the US Press. His fellow students were all surprised, as well. They’d not heard about it, but you know…”Bush is a moron and everything he does is bad and stupid and illegal and power-grabbing” was the general consensus, because that’s basically all the kids could find in their own reading. Buster came home and said, “Hey, Ma!” (These days EVERY sentence begins with “hey,” which is starting to annoy me a little…) “do you remember earlier this year, wasn’t there some reason why Jon Stewart and everyone was saying, ‘maybe Bush was right after all? What was that about, again?’ By jove…the kid was right. I’d forgotten all about it, myself - I could remember reading (or seeing a tape) of Stewart looking panicked and saying the words, but I couldn’t remember what the issue was about. Turns out Stewart -I can’t help it, I have a soft spot for him (I like olive skinned men and Jewish men…what can I say?) - was fretting because the first Iraqi election had been successful beyond anyone’s estimation: Money quote from Fareed Zakaria to John Stewart: “What I’m saying is that you and Ted Kennedy need to stop telling us to get out of there (Iraq).” And Stewart to Zakaria: “I’ve watched this thing unfold from the start, and, and, here’s the great fear that I have: what if Bush, the President, ours, has been right about this all along? I feel like my worldview will not sustain itself and I may - and again, I don’t know if I can physically do this - implode.” Stewart, btw, was not the only Bush-hater cringing to say it. Not by a long shot. But on the defining, fundamental question, Bush was right. He understood that to defeat an idea, no matter how perverse and brutal it might be, it was necessary to have an opposite and superior idea. He understood, in other words — instinctively rather than intellectually — that the only way to win a war against terrorism was to turn it into a war for democracy. This is now happening. Against the quest of ordinary Iraqis for dignity and self-respect and freedom, the terrorists in Iraq had nothing ultimately to offer, except blood and hatred. Already, Palestinians and Afghanis have made the same choice. Even in Europe, IS BUSH RIGHT, AFTER ALL was the big question. Yet three years later, East Germany had disappeared from the map. Gorbachev had a lot to do with it, but it was the East Germans who played the larger role. When analysts are confronted by real people, amazing things can happen. And maybe history can repeat itself. Maybe the people of Syria, Iran or Jordan will get the idea in their heads to free themselves from their oppressive regimes just as the East Germans did. When the voter turnout in Iraq recently exceeded that of many Western nations, the chorus of critique from Iraq alarmists was, at least for a couple of days, quieted. Just as quiet as the chorus of Germany experts on the night of Nov. 9, 1989 when the Wall fell. Just a thought for Old Europe to chew on: Bush might be right, just like Reagan was then. (H/T SCA.) Having refreshed our memories, Buster confided his theory to me, inspired by both his teacher’s sense of wonder in reading about the Bush environmental initiatives, and the memory of Stewart’s admission: “I think,” he said, “they hate Bush so much, because they saw that he had greatness in him, and he wasn’t supposed to be great. He was supposed to be, at best, slightly worse than his father.” There might be something to that, after all. I mean, for months now better, smarter bloggers than I have tried to understand what it is about Bush that has driven so many people around the bend, and has even inspired journalists we formerly thought very well of to simply lose it where he is concerned. Perhaps it is the narrative. Bush is not following the narrative. He was supposed to be a semi-harmless goofball the press and the Dems could run a few circles around before being defeated in 2004. Instead, 9/11 turned him into a president with strong ideas and stubborn resolve. He couldn’t be moved or swayed, not by editorial boards, not by marching millions, and..and…the 2002 election went his way! And his poll numbers wouldn’t go down, dammit, they just wouldn’t go down! If this kept up, Bush 43 was actually going to have a LEGACY. A real one, and - if his ideas were successful -a staggering one. There was only one way to change that: write and talk as much trash as they could, get it all on record. Suspect EVERYTHING. Denouce EVERYTHING (when was the last time you read a sentence about Democrats, re Bush, that used the word “support”? Now, think - how often are the headlines “Democrats denounce Bush” or “battle” or “decry”…) Pummel, pummel, pummel this guy, and eventually he’ll go down, and his legacy will be shattered and the narrative, which the press and the Dems were accustomed to controlling, would be safe. It’s only a theory. It’s an idea. I put it out there because Buster has a way of coming at an issue in a fresh, unexpected way. As he just did. Bush wasn’t supposed to be this good. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/01/06/busters-got-a-theory/trackback/ 17 Responses to “Kyoto? Buster’s got a theory; haters will hate it” |
January 6th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
probably more truth there than is readily apparant. they are still struggling with trying to recover from Reagan, the last thing they want is to have someone else significantly change things like that.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Going over some old threads at the Lucianne archives, from when Saddam was captured, I realized that I’d forgotten that this happened soon after Bush’s surprise visit to Baghdad. http://lucianne.com/routine/archives/12-14-038.htm #72 at L.com said, “I am thinking that maybe President Bushs’ appearance in Iraq triggered the tip that caught this stinking murderer.
The Iraqis were reassured that if the President of the USA came in person, he meant business and they would be really free. What say you all?”
That plastic turkey talk has been used to eclipse memory not only of W’s Three Pillars speech and the Iraqi anti-terrorist marches soon after his visit, but also the soon ensuing capture of Saddam. The press can only pummel, pummel, pummel W. Somehow I knew if I came here that I’d find it relevant.
But then, evolution “just a conjecture”? Please tell the viral organisms in my eye that. Then I can stop worrying about their evolving immunity to the medicine, as happens to many of my less than perfectly careful co-sufferers.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Buster’s got it, I think. I don’t think anyone would have said, 6 years ago, that he was a particularly strong candidate. But, regardless of whether you agree with him or not, he has certainly been a very strong President.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
“He was supposed to be a semi-harmless goofball the press and the Dems could run a few circles around before being defeated in 2004.” I don’t know that I agree with the second part, though- I don’t think it was just the Dems who thought he’d be a harmless goof. I think most people did- and were suprised when they got someone as strong and resolute as they did
January 6th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
My Dear Anchoress,
As a scientist, I always cringe when I hear someone say “only a theory”, because in science, a theory is a hypothesis consistent with all of the available objective evidence. At its heart gravity is “only a theory” but it is pretty useful.
Having said this, you have a very strong hypothesis. Did you ponder it long or was it an … epiphany?
Have a Blessed day,
oddball
January 7th, 2006 at 1:08 am
Oddball - wasn’t me, it was my son…but I think maybe HE had an epiphany! And it’s not Sunday yet!
January 7th, 2006 at 3:26 am
When you are an enlightened liberal genius, and the populace doesn’t agree with you, it is b/c the populace are simpletons who have been enchanted by a con man. Buster is onto something - but it isn’t, exactly, that Bush turned out to be “good” at policy and politics - though some liberal geniuses must grudgingly suspect such a thing. For the most part, no Republican policies or actions could ever be “good.” And Bush is too stupid and clumsy to ever be a “good” politician.
`
Rather, what drives them crazy is that - in spite of Bush’s stupidity and clumsiness - somehow the simpletons are still charmed. What the?! How can this be?! Liberal geniuses simply cannot stand it:
Cripes! Can’t you simpletons see through this Chimpy McBush?!!!! What is wrong with you people!!!??? Don’t you know this and this and this about him!!!! HE LIED!
`
The more the simpletons love Bush, the shriller and louder the liberal geniuses get. They believe it is only a matter of educating and informing, then the unwashed masses will come to see that Bush is stupid and inept.
`
And then, like the worst liberal nightmare ever, things are falling Bush’ way: Iraq elections, economy. Its the lucky streak from liberal hell - the worst nightmare ever. Ten and twenty years from now, Bush will be described as the luckiest man ever to hold the office. Since he couldn’t have been RIGHT in his policies, and he couldn’t have been shrewd or talented enough to con even the simpletons, Bush will be thought to have gone on the longest lucky streak in the history of man. They will say Bush was a great President b/c he was lucky, and luck is important for any President.
`
And they will lament poor Bill Clinton. Tsk, tsk. So talented. So unlucky.
January 7th, 2006 at 3:40 am
Re-reading my comment, I think Buster is onto more than I gave him credit for. I don’t think liberal geniuses believe Bush’ policies are good for the nations, - but they are terrified they might be. That Bush might be right threatens everything they have based their lives on. It threatens their very existence as good and enlightened people. They are scared to death, and they lash out like cornered wolverines.
`
Buster’s theory explains the animal hostility. My theory(above) explains the exasperation.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:06 am
And, of course, its not “my” theory. I’ve been reading through Shrinkwrapped and Dr. Sanity on narcissism, and my comments(#7) were 100% influenced by them.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:07 am
Dear Anchoress
I think the anti Bush illness is due to the fact that there is a plan, a plan that was devised at least a century ago, and according to that plan the world should be in the hands of the communist by now. But so many things have interfered with the plan (including even Hitler) that it’s driving them nuts. They were sure that by the end of the XX Century the whole world will be theirs…but it didn’t happen. And now, the fact that Bush is in charge is defeating the plan once more again, this into the XXI Century, and that drives them completely rabid.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:45 am
I see this mindset so often in the people I work with. They hold views that are thisclose to being in sync with Bush, but they desperately want to be liked by People Who Matter that they simply can’t bring themselves to say, “Isn’t it great that the Iraqi people had three successful elections and are well on their way to forming a true democracy? And the same goes for Afghanistan” Nope, it’s “That Bush, he’s a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot and he’s dumb too.”
January 7th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Buster was right!
And we need to realize that even with Reagan dead and buried, the Libs are STILL trying to negate his accomplishments.
January 7th, 2006 at 11:11 am
You have one very special son Dear Anchoress!! Thank you for sharing him with us!
January 7th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I agree with you Madame about the screaming on the left, so appropriate for the “Hollywood crowd” that it did not go according to the script.
I never watched the show, but many of my Democratic friends pointed out that “West Wing” was the Democrats fantasy of the Clinton administration. It’s the way “it should have been!” Moderate liberal president, who sometimes used conservative ideas to accomplish liberal goals. Clinton without Lewinsky and Gingrich.
And based on the anti-Bush screeds I still see, most of them are still living in some sort of fantasy land.
January 7th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Gcotharn:
I really don’t consider Clinton “unlucky.” OTC I think he benefited from a great streak of luck.
1) Clinton does not see the fiscal responsibility light, until the Republicans took Congress. To be fair, it was mostly his fault this happened (Hillarycare anyone?) but still can you imagine the deficits being cut down with Tom Foley, Rostenkowski et. al still in charge of their pork-laden fiefdoms in the House? No freaking way! Remember the House passes the spending bills but the President gets the credit or blame for surplusses or defecits.
2) None of his foreign policy moves blew up in his face. Bosnia did not turn into the quagmire that many military experts and many conservative hawks screamed that it could have been. He made a huge gamble and it paid off. Kosovo, although poorly executed was basically an air war and there were no body bags unloaded at Andrews.
3) The “its his turn re-election opponont.” Clinton benefited from a Bob Dole, a weak candidate who only got the nod, because he had been there so long. I find this very similar to Reagan’s luck at getting to campaign against tired old Walter Mondale in ‘84.
4) Clinton happened to be in office during the dot.com boom, so he gets the credit for the artificially high economy. And got to leave office just as the balloon was bursting.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
[...] Another pointer from Dr. Sanity’s blog. This one goes to a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post on The Anchoress. Her son had some intriguing thoughts about Bush’s legacy. This post is sure to wind some liberals’ tails up tight! “I think,” he said, “they hate Bush so much, because they saw that he had greatness in him, and he wasn’t supposed to be great. He was supposed to be, at best, slightly worse than his father.” [...]
January 8th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
When does Buster get his own blog? I’m ready to blogroll him in a second! Another class project, perhaps?
I too see Gore/Kerry whose views on a host of particular narrow subjects line up almost perfectly with those of the President. And yet they can’t bring themselves to connect the dots - to accept him for who he is and what he’s done the way many came grudgingly to do with Clinton.