A fellow Psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, coined the term Bush Derangement Syndrome, in December, 2003, in an attempt to make sense of the irrationality of so much of the opposition to George Bush. In the news today is a report of John Kerry, who appears to have been so damaged by his inexplicable loss to Bush in the last election, that he has been unable to come to terms with his defeat, that he somehow manages to believe, in an almost delusional way, that he can still become President someday soon: Kerry Touts Bush Impeachment Memo
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
He is now out there with the Deaniacs and others who are convincing themselves that Bush, all Republicans except John McCain, the US Military, and anyone who supports our efforts to win the war in Iraq are evil, sadistic monsters who are much more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I do not think Bush Derangement Syndrome is a full explanation of this phenomenon.
BDS is only part of a larger syndrome. Illiberal liberals, those who cry "fascist" and "Bushhitler" the loudest, leftists, ranging from outright communists to softer socialists, have defined much of their sens of themselves in terms of the virtues conferred upon them by their superior intellect and superior moral positions. In the heyday of liberalism, the political narrative consisted of the following:
Republicans were social Darwinists who did not care about minorities and the impoverished.
Democrats cared deeply about the poor and underprivileged.
Republicans were imperialistic capitalists, always seeking new sources of raw materials for their hungry factories and markets for their over priced products.
Democrats were interested in sacrificing some of their own welfare in order to elevate those less fortunate than themselves and would agree to pay higher taxes in order to help those in this country and abroad.
Republicans were religious yahoos who rejected science and reason, and believed they had the revealed word of God.
Democrats, by virtue of their superior intellects and educations, recognized the complexities of life and were able to relegate religion to its proper place with their superstitions.
I believe that at one time these positions reflected a grain of truth. Too many on the right were racist and bigoted, often anti-Semitic as well. Some seemed willing to risk nuclear destruction in order to win an ideological fight. Without the support of the progressives, our minority population might well have remained second class citizens, with the power of the state devoted to maintaining them in that status.
The country decided to do the sociological experiment. LBJ crafted the Great Society programs, in which the poor and minorities were to be granted a modicum of largess from our bounty in order to lift them up socioeconomically. When that didn't seem to work too well, affirmative action was introduced in order to level the playing field. The average American knew that they could rarely compete on the same playing field with the rich, that their children would most likely go to state colleges rather than Ivy League schools, but they accepted that someone would have to give up some of their privileges in order to help the less fortunate, and they also knew that if they and their children worked hard, the "American Dream" would still be available to them. The truly wealthy, derisively known as "limousine liberals", never had to worry; if you are wealthy enough, there are few impediments to going to the best schools and having all the best advantages life has to offer. Even the annoyance factor, of being told by our betters to make sacrifices they wouldn't have to make, didn't dissuade most Americans from supporting the various programs of the liberal agenda. What ultimately lead to the loss of faith in entitlements as a way to lift up the lower classes, was the feeling that the liberal agenda was becoming counter-productive, and the incontrovertible fact that they didn't work. On any scale one looked, all social pathologies were worsening under the impact of compassionate liberalism.
Unfortunately, the discussion of the best ways in which to integrate the poorest and most underprivileged Americans into the larger society was short circuited by the agony of Vietnam, a war started by Democrats and carried through to an ignominious end by a hated Republican. Nixon, in the news these days with the revelations about "Deep Throat", was hated by the liberals with a passion later exhibited for Ronald Reagan and now directed at George W Bush. (I am not addressing his transgressions which were deservedly found to be causes for impeachment; that is not my interest here.) All three share some commonalities. They all were unashamed of their pro-American, pro-Capitalistic, anti-collectivist political philosophies. They were and are hated for an additional, crucial reason. Capitalism won the cold war, a sometimes shooting war, but more importantly a war of ideas, with the Soviet Union. The Utopian dreams of the left, that a new man would arise out of the ashes of the 20th century and love, kindness, sharing would reign supreme over the planet, were dashed. To this day, too many liberals cannot allow themselves to appreciate how corrupt and evil their heroes were. It is arguably true that Stalin and Mao killed more people than Hitler. The Vietnam communists are estimated to have killed between 750,000 and 1,000,000 and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge killed anywhere from 1-2,000,000 people in the name of creating the new, Utopian, Communist Man.
The Communist experiments have all failed horribly, with immense tragedy along the way. The liberal experiment failed, with tremendous human waste and suffering, and is still failing in Europe; with Ronald Reagan, and later with Newt Gingrich and the contract with America, the ship of state slowly moved back toward the center.
Most religions believe that some day a Savior will come (or return) and usher in a Kingdom of Heaven where all live and love in peace and plenty. Communism was determined to produce this paradise on earth even at the cost of killing millions of "counter-revolutionaries." To this day many progressives can still not accept that the "counter-revolutionaries" were people, too.
This, then, is what gives Bush Derangement Syndrome its emotional power and passion. If the progressives are wrong about Bush, wrong about the direction of our country, wrong about how best to organize a society and produce freedom and wealth, then they have been wrong for the last 30 years. They would have to accept their complicity in the deaths of millions. They would have to deal with being allied with monsters who killed indiscriminately and sadistically, rather than on the side of the angels. How could they face themselves if they were wrong? Their guilt would be overwhelming. They have chosen to seek protection in their anger even if it is delusional because the alternative would be, literally, unbearable.
Recent Comments