October 28, 2004
IS IT MORNING OR TWILIGHT IN AMERICA?
Radical Bush vs. reactionary Kerry (Jeff Jacoby, October 28, 2004, Boston Globe)
BILL CLINTON was back on the campaign trail this week, a fine embodiment of the stakes in the 2004 election.Still recovering from his open-heart surgery, the last Democratic president seemed a bit gaunt and not as boisterous as the shameless old rogue we got to know so well during the 1990s. But the familiar good humor was there, and so was the charisma and the engaging sunniness. A huge crowd turned out to see him in Philadelphia, where he cheerfully painted a picture of good times gone bad since the accession of George W. Bush. When he embraced John Kerry in a bear hug, the message could hardly have been clearer: Things were better under Clinton, and they can be better under Kerry. Return to the policies of the 1990s, and we'll all feel good again.
And there in a nutshell is the choice in this election: forward with Bush into a difficult future or backward with Kerry to the familiar ways of the past. It would be an easy decision, except for one thing: The familiar ways of the past led to Sept. 11.
Kerry is a liberal Democrat, but in this campaign he is running as a reactionary: one who wants to reverse course -- to go back to the attitudes and practices that guided US policy when Clinton and the elder George Bush were in office. The younger Bush may be a Republican, but he is running this year as a radical. Profoundly transformed by 9/11, he sees the old playbook as feckless and is set on a revolutionary new course.
More important is the domestic front, where Mr. Kerry is a throwback to the '70s, and Mr. Bush a reformer on a massive scale. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 28, 2004 10:38 AM
So the '90s were "good times" because Bill Clinton happened to be the guy in office? And the '00s have been not-as-good because George W. Bush happens to be the one?
Do Americans really buy into this kind of simplistic junk? Do they really think that a U.S. president commands such power and control over the zeitgeist?
And if Americans actually do think so, do they really want it to be that way?
I know that politicians will say all sorts of things to sway voters. But for something to become acceptable, unquestioned rhetoric, there has to be some grain of conventional wisdom to it. And apparently this sort of presidential omnipotency has become the conventional wisdom. No wonder our presidential campaign seasons have become like steel-cage death matches -- people really do think of a president as a king.
So the '90s were "good times" because Bill Clinton happened to be the guy in office?
Ees Party Line, Comrades.
The Clinton years (all genuflect and burn the pinch of incense before their Divine Images) were a Perfect Paradise -- no war, no unemployment, no homeless, no poverty, nothing wrong at all (except for the machinations of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy), all because of Great Leader Bill and Dear Leader Hillary (all genuflect and burn the pinch of incense before their Divine Images).
After all, the media says so.
Posted by: Ken at October 28, 2004 12:40 PMThose big crowds were city workers given the afternoon off to attend the rally.
Posted by: at October 28, 2004 2:36 PMThose big crowds were city workers given the afternoon off to attend the rally.
Posted by: erp at October 28, 2004 2:36 PMThose big crowds were city workers given the afternoon off to attend the rally.
Posted by: erp at October 28, 2004 2:37 PMThose big crowds were city workers given the afternoon off to attend the rally.
Posted by: hiccup at October 29, 2004 11:13 AM