Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览约瑟夫·索伯伦(Joseph Sobran)档案
布什革命
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

At certain moments, you realize with stunning clarity how empty and absurd our political clichés really are. “Democracies don’t start wars,” Condoleezza Rice repeated the other day. What can that possibly mean in the real world?

Taken literally, this simple formula implies that any time a democracy is at war with a nondemocracy, the nondemocracy must have been the aggressor. Since the United States is a democracy, it’s unthinkable that it may be even partly to blame. Thus the Iraq war must have been Iraq’s fault.

As you see, the logic tends to be rather, well, Soviet. You may recall that the Soviet Union was never the aggressive party in any conflict. It was always defending itself against capitalists, reactionaries, and fascists, just as the United States is now defending itself (and world freedom, democracy, et cetera) against Islamofascists. Whenever the Soviets invaded a country, they said they were “liberating” it, the very verb the United States now adopts to describe its military mischief abroad.

By the same token, the state of Israel, another democracy, is always the victim in any conflict. Apologists like Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, and Charles Krauthammer have made this point so often that you may wonder if the laws of probability have been suspended. One could believe that Israel is in the right more often than not, considering some of its enemies. But is it possible that the Israelis are never, ever even partially at fault, just a wee little bit?

Another beloved old saying may have expired at last. Though I grew up with it and used to believe it, I haven’t heard it lately. It ran like this: “In times of crisis, America produces great leaders.” The revised version may take a different form: “In times of Bush, America produces great crises.”

Shortly after September 2001, many Americans took President Bush for the Anointed One, the heroic, eloquent man of destiny who brought moral clarity to an unprecedented national challenge by the forces of darkness. Even the Democrats rallied behind him, none more avidly than Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. To oppose Bush’s war on terrorism was to risk charges of disloyalty. “Old Europe” had its doubts, but it was irrelevant, even contemptible, and could be ignored.

Five years later, Bush’s name draws surefire guffaws when Leno and Letterman merely mention it; not since Monica Lewinsky have their gag-writers had it so easy. Lieberman is fighting for his political life, may well lose even his party’s nomination for his Senate seat this year, and has been reduced to asking Bill Clinton, whom he famously rebuked for immorality, to campaign for him.

Fortune’s wheel has made one of its notorious revolutions. The Republicans, forgetting Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, were planning on consolidating their rule for the foreseeable future behind their invincible war president. Karl Rove was a strategic genius. Even this year, Rove had decided to stake the Republicans’ election hopes on the Iraq war; the idea was to accuse the “cut-and-run” Democrats of weakness against America’s enemies.

Today Bush has become a synonym for arrogance and ineptitude. He is losing even his conservative base. Interviewed by CBS, William F. Buckley — the country’s senior conservative, bosom friend and intellectual patron of Ronald Reagan — has declared that Bush is no conservative and observed that if he were a European prime minister his failed war would have forced him to resign from office. George Will has been equally scathing.

Liberals have loathed Bush since his dubious electoral victory in 2000, but now he is equally despised by their adversaries. He has achieved a remarkable consensus: Nearly everyone who adheres to 任何 political principle, left or right, agrees that he is a dreadful failure, indeed a disaster. And we are doomed to more than two more years of his rule, not to mention generations of aftermath.

Nothing has made America more hated around the world than Bush’s “global democratic revolution,” whose chief fruit has been more of the grisly terrorism that democracy was supposed to vanquish. Even worse than the harm he has already done is the future he has sentenced us to — endless war, crushing debt, and other irritations.

Let’s hope our great nation’s comedians will still be able to see the funny side of it.

(从重新发布 索伯兰的 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 乔治·W· 灌木 
当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有约瑟夫·索伯伦评论