« If it Wasn't for the Churches, We'd Have Been Forgotten |
Main
| Bumper sightings »
July 09, 2007
Why, Again
During the Harriet Miers fiasco, I wondered why Bush would have pushed such an unqualified and infuriating nominee. It has been increasingly difficult to explain the actions of this administration, which have grown more and more bizarre. And I'm not just referring to the incidental dramas like the Vice President's hunting incident, which, as I will explain, was probably no accident. No, this Administration has done some truly jaw-dropping things, like issuing signing statements that simultaneously authorize laws and render them null and void. Or how about sending White House henchmen to John Ashcroft's hospital bed in the middle of the night to obtain his approval of illegal wiretapping? Or Cheney's claim that he is not subject to Executive Branch requirements because he is a member of the Legislative Branch? Or most recently, the arbitrary commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence?
The volume of incredible moves coming out of the Bush Administration astonishes liberals, alienates conservatives, and dazzles the writers at The Daily Show. But I think they've all greatly misunderstood what is actually going on.
I was recently watching Reno 911!: Miami, when the answer came to me in a jolt of inspiration. Bush and his senior advisers are not, in fact, stubborn and isolated neoconservatives. They are a highly dedicated and creative troupe of improvisational Surrealist performance artists*. Rather than following some ideological agenda, every aspect of this White House seeks to top the previously held conceptions with ever more outlandish behaviour and policy decisions.
Let's imagine how this works. The premise: a highly-unpopular President with no political capital is looking for a way to rescue some sort of legacy for his administration. There are many pedestrian themes one could play on to bring this scenario to resolution, but Team Bush came up with the most unexpected: go after the remaining 28% of his supporters and try his best to alienate them. Brilliant!
And it's not only broad story arcs like this that reveal their talent. Bush is able to manufacture surreal jokes on the fly. Remember when he was asked by the German weekly Bild am Sonntag what was the high point of his Presidency? The improvised answer: catching a 7.5-lbs. perch on his lake. (Or maybe not? This is a multi-layered joke.)
The real pity is that The Daily Show is really making fools of themselves. They are obviously not "in" on the jokes, or else they would not so smugly mock the Administration. If only they could recognize the creative talent before them.
I'm pretty proud of my theory, and it's hard to observe the White House and not see how well it fits. While Bush is the obvious ringleader, we at once see why Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not been fired: he is simply too talented at improvisational Surrealism, as evidenced by his Congressional testimony. Dali himself could do little better at a public grilling. And Karl Rove, long viewed as a mere political mastermind, early-on proved himself to be a master of found art and absurdity. Cheney, of course, is the most daring artist of the bunch. (Hence, the hunting accident. Bold. During a time of war when opponents complained that the rich and privileged were shielded from any personal sacrifice or risk, he shoots a supporter in the face. Take that you bourgeois pacifists!) He's the Maestro of Irony. The only wonder is that the Washington Post didn't put their four-part expose in the "Arts & Living" section.
The best part of this theory is the realization that things can only get better. This Administration has managed to consistently top their previous feats of absurdity. Now that voters are evenly split on whether Bush should be impeached, we can expect the White House to come out with their most outlandish escapades yet. Whatever will they think of next?
* Really, what's the difference between a great comedy group name like "Upright Citizens' Brigade" and "Project for the New American Century"?
Posted by Zach Wendling at July 9, 2007 12:28 PM
Team Bush is absurd all right. Absurd like a fox.
John Dean (who, btw, is responsible for Fred Fielding - he hired him for Team Nixon) wrote a longish, but very interesting post in FindLaw's Writ back in March on executive privelege, the unitary executive theory, and this particular White House.
From the post: These issues strike at the heart of what post-Watergate conservative Republicans seek to create: an all-powerful presidency. Thus, for the same reason that Vice President Cheney went to extreme lengths to block Congress from getting information about the work of his National Energy Task Force, as I discussed in prior columns such as this one, I expect President Bush to take what will appear to be a similar irrational posture. For both Bush and Cheney, virtually any limit on presidential power is too great.
Is this really what modern conservatives are pining for? An executive branch with virtually unfettered power? It certainly appeared that way to me, at least during Bush's first term when the GOP majority in Congress acted like little more than a rubber stamp.
I'm not sure that picture gives an accurate lay of the GOP landscape though, at least judging by the props that Ron Paul appears to be getting. Is there a disconnect between establishment GOP in Washington and grassroots GOP on this?
Posted by: JohnS at July 10, 2007 08:43 AM | permalink
At least with regard to the perch/bass issue, I would guess that we are dealing with a translation glitch. In Europe, "Bass" refers to a marine species related to the American striped bass. The European perch, Perca fluviatilis, is a popular freshwater game fish. European perch are larger than American yellow perch, and since they are superficially similar to largemouth bass, I think it is entirely possible that Bush said "bass" but the German weekly translated it into terms that his audience would understand. Then, the American newspapers referenced the German paper instead of the White house transcript.
What all this goes to show is that Bush should always say Micropterus salmoides when he is telling fish stories.
Posted by: Nick at July 10, 2007 08:44 AM | permalink
Followup to myself...
In German, perch = barsch, but barsch is a generaly term for a wide range of similar fish. Largemouth bass are apparently called Forellembarsch, grossmauliger forellembarsch, or Amerikanischer schwarzbarsch.
So this is pretty clearly a case of newspapers doing a thoughtless babelfish-type translation back from from German and assuming that "barsch" always means "perch." It's a dumbass media story, not a dumbass Bush story.
Posted by: Nick at July 10, 2007 09:02 AM | permalink
This post: why I love in the agora.
Posted by: Chuck at July 10, 2007 10:09 AM | permalink
Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at July 10, 2007 10:39 AM | permalink
Is this really what modern conservatives are pining for? An executive branch with virtually unfettered power?
Not this conservative. For me, "limited government" applies to the president as well. Though there are plenty of "modern conservatives" who'd love a big chief to boss them around. They're called Giuliani voters.
Posted by: DMD at July 10, 2007 10:46 AM | permalink
I am confused about the inclusion of the fish comment. I would be very surprised to learn that Bush did not actually intend for this to be a joke, unlike everything else in the post, for which your running joke is that it looks as though they are trying to entertain us, even though they are not.
Also, I agree with Nick about translation errors being likely. The structure of the sentences that the BBC attributed to Bush just doesn't sound like him.
Posted by: Karl at July 10, 2007 12:59 PM | permalink
Post a comment