House of Eratosthenes

“I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology � with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress,” Buckley says. “And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge.”

In fact, I will do Mr. Buckley one better. If you are to define a “liberal” as a public official who, when he or one of his initiatives is in a spat of trouble, responds first-and-foremost by spending money to ingratiate himself with those who might make much better allies than foes, President Bush has been the living illustration of that. He has been a fiscal conservative up until the point where he must spend political capital to keep the funds in the treasury where they belong. And quick as a whisper, the funds are spent, along with his fair-weather conservatism.

Buckley also says our current President is going to be a failure, that he will have no legacy. His litmus test for such a thing is crystal-clear.

In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure. “If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,” Buckley says.
:
Asked what President Bush’s foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says “There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don’t believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable”

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with this. Why? Because Buckley’s definitions of success are external. They depend on the points-of-view of others. This isn’t Europe.

This is not to say that the zeitgeist (see FAQ, Question 10) lacks importance. The zeitgeist, as it applies here, is a special one. Like the prevailing notions of any other era, it has lift, and it has drag. The modern notion that Iraq is a failure, Bush has no legacy, etc. etc. etc. is popular, no doubt about it. But it has a lot of drag. Why do I say this?

I say this because the net prevailing notion, the notion that a change of course is needed, is a struggling one. President Bush may be faced with a hostile Congress during the last half of his second term; or, he may not. It’s too soon to say. And yet the lift has been extraordinary. Day after day after day, the Hollywood glitterati hold their rolling fasts and what-not; the print media opines endlessly about our “quagmire” and “Abu Ghraib,” and it’s plain to see the newspapers and magazines would just-as-soon we stayed out of Iraq altogether. We are bombarded with their agendized invective day after day.

To say that Iraq is going to cost President Bush his legacy, is to say it is self-evident that Iraq is a failure. If it was self-evident, the prevailing viewpoint would be more like a paper-airplane, not a 747. All this heated consumption of fuel, exhaust fumes, greenhouse gases, incredible heat, would be replaced by a simple flick-of-the-wrist. Such a notion would launch, and soar over all our heads…naturally.

That isn’t what is happening here. If Bush has a legacy, he needs no artificial force to keep it going. If he does not have one, then his enemies need no artificial force to keep it suppressed. They do need this artificial force; people of all ideologies, who’ve been paying attention to what’s going on, must agree on this. I’m not quite sure about whether he needs the same for his interests.

Come to think of it, conservatism is supposed to be about — I thought — rejecting the prevailing notion, in favor of recognizing truth for onesself. This is exactly what liberalism used to mean awhile back (see FAQ, linked above, Question 6). Buckley says Bush’s venture has been a failure, because if he was a European leader, he’d be expected to step down. Not to dispute the correctness of his hypothesis, but how does that matter?

Prevailing viewpoint is dangerous. We take it as a given that we all have influence in deciding what it is, and it rests completely in no single pair of hands. This is an extravagant notion to try to maintain, for if a sentiment is truly embraced by us all, there would be little or no need to communicate it. Collaboration would be an option. And yet the prevailing viewpoints that are supposed to prevail most aggressively, are the ones that are expressed with the greatest urgency by those who express them. Resources are spent, for no purpose other than to get the collaboration done, and then more resources are spent, and more, and more.

I’m having a great deal of difficulty with the notion that President Bush’s legacy has wilted to the point of oblivion, and at the same time, there is a pressing need to make sure everybody understand that it is gone. To put it concisely, why is there a pressing need to tell people what they’re supposed to already be thinking?

At one point the prevailing opinion in America was that people could hold other people in bondage.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” – Twain
- Duffy | 07/24/2006 @ 11:50

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Buckley’s InterviewMonday, July 24th, 2006

Buckley’s Interview
Monday, July 24th, 2006