Posts
Paul Berman, writing in the Nov. 28 & Dec. 5 New Republic (“The Anti-Anti-Americans”) puts his finger on why the mention of President George W. Bush sends his haters here and in Europe rushing to the vomitorium.
“…[E]verything about the new president, each strange tic and motion—the street thug’s swagger, the inability to compose his face into a civil expression, the problem with alcohol, the apparent lack of formal education, and so forth—conjured in Europe the worst of clichés about Texas barbarism.”
2 comments:
Note the phrase "the apparent lack of formal education." Now, we all know that GWB was born into wealth and received a degree from Yale. So why does it seem like he just rode in from the range? Well, the populist Texan act comes in handy when trying to convince farmers that the Estate Tax would take away the family farm. When you launch a war based on known falsehoods (see the Downing Street memos, study up on the goals and membership of the Project for the New American Century), it's sure helpful to seem dumb when it all blows up in your face.
I don't give a rat's ass whether he swaggers, staggers, drawls or drools. Results are what matters.
Results, indeed. Two of the world's most despotic regimes are history.
Over at the New York Times at least, how Bush walks appears to be important. Before the 2004 election, the paper devoted an entire article to interpreting his appearance, coming to the conclusion that holding his hands and arms away from his sides indicates that he's ready to call you out and draw you down. Journalism at its best.
Post a Comment