A new theory of Bush

As we consider President Bush’s amazing, unrelenting, robot-like, “Undead”-like efforts to push though his staggeringly ruinous and unpopular immigration scheme, an intriguing question arises: Is it possible that Bush is serving God’s purpose after all—though not in the sense Bush himself believes?

What if Bush is God’s chosen instrument, not to open America’s borders to the Third World and to Hispanicize America, which is the purpose Bush himself thinks he is pursuing, but rather, by his excessive zeal and his stunning indifference to the nation’s legitimate concerns, to turn America against open borders and thus save America?

Similarly, could Bush be God’s chosen instrument, not to spread democracy to Islam, as Bush thinks he is doing, but rather to expose the falsity of arrogant ideologies aimed at transforming humanity, and so return America once again to its true self, as one nation under God?

In short, could God still be on our side after all?

This theory would explain so many things about Bush that have never made sense or that seemed impossibly strange in a U.S. president: his mindless stubbornness in the pursuit of terrible ideas; his obnoxious imperiousness as he utters boilerplate that seems to have been planted in his head by advisors, and which he will contradict a day later, in an equally imperious tone; his unbelievable, gratuitous insulting of his Republican and conservative base; his total lack of intellectual curiosity; his incapacity for critical thought; his dependence on instinct to make decisions and on prayer to validate them; the way he’s limited his circle of advisors to a handful of fourth rate nonentities, Laura, Condi, Karen, and Harriet; and, finally, his impenetrably puzzling motives—why, for example, has he been so set on letting Mexicans take over America? Theories have abounded but none has been satisfactory. The answer to all this now suggests itself: Bush is an automaton in the service of Providence. His actions are causeless and brainless—they must be causeless and brainless—because no normally rational and conscious person would do the things Bush has done. Bush, in short, is being led by a Higher Power to extreme acts of anti-nationalism precisely in order to discredit anti-nationalism and so deliver America from disaster!

Further explanation

This theory is not like the usual Bush theories, in which we attempt to explain Bush in terms of his background, personality, ideological beliefs, political interests, family connections, and so on, but rather in terms of a higher purpose of which Bush himself is entirely unaware.

I started from these facts:

- Bush’s position on immigration is crazy, destructive, irrational, patently offensive.

- He pursues it like a somnambulist, even to his own severe political detriment, namely the profound alienation of his own base.

- His advocacy of open borders is so extreme and offensive that it is moving the American people against immigration and creating the first popular passion for immigration restriction ever.

Now, how do we make sense of these facts? My theory, as fanciful as it is, does that. Bush is the unconscious instrument of Providence, which is using Bush to drive the immigration issue so hard that he inadvertently wakes up America to the immigration threat and saves America from its own suicidal liberalism.

end of initial entry—

N. writes:

After the Civil Rights Act was made law, the propaganda machines went to work and portrayed it as a great victory for the Democrat party. Black voters have been in the hip pocket of the Democrat party ever since. Perhaps El Presidente “Viva” Bush, or his advisors, are thinking that by bringing millions of illiterates into the country and giving them their citizenship, they can create a group of voters who can be counted on to pull the GOP lever no matter what, just like the black voters.

Gintas writes:

Your operating principle is that God is on our side. The evidence tends to back that up, God takes care of drunks, simpletons, and the United States of America.

How (and why) God raises up and brings down nations is up to him. It will be seen clearly only in retrospect: how instrumental was Bush in a) leading to a revitalization or b) the final ruin?

Certainly he’s more interesting (and useful) in the former role; in the latter, he’s just another in a long line of dreary figures leading the West to ruin.

Ben writes:

I agree with your article 100 percent, and it’s not just Bush but it seems God is exposing the whole “conservative” movement almost forcing them to say how they really feel arrogantly to the American people. Almost forcing them beyond their will to show how liberal they really are and how they are really just men who are guided by liberalism, power, influence, stock futures, and portfolios and not men of principle as they tried to portray during the Clinton years.

Dubai Ports comes to mind. Remember in the Dubai Ports deal when Bush came out and said he would veto anything against it then came out the next day and said he didn’t know much about the deal? Their arrogance and stupidity was astounding, almost supernaturally stupid.

I remember during the London Bombings, Brit Hume said: “My first thought … when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning… I thought, ‘hmmm, time to buy.’” I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It’s bad enough somebody would think that but to then turn around and admit it nationally. This was coming from the so called “conservative” Fox News.

I know this past year has been very enlightening to me.

The real question to ask though is will America heed his warnings quickly enough and wake up from their materialistic slumber and realize how dangerous these times are?

Paul K. writes:

I value VFR not only for the information and insights you provide, but because you so eloquently articulate the combination of fury and incredulity that is coursing through me lately. This president seems determined to ride the immigration issue down to single digit approval ratings, and when he leaves office—having turned over the White House, the House, and the Senate to the Democrats—he’ll tell us, with his insufferable faux humility, that in his heart he knows he did the right thing and that’s what’s really important.

I don’t think I’ve ever been so enraged by those on the other side of a political debate. I may doubt the good faith of the left-wingers on affirmative action, gun control, national health care, etc., but at least on those issues they make some sort of argument that their position is good for America. In the current debate, what’s good for American doesn’t even come up. Rather, it’s: What right does America have to its borders? What right does America have to enforce its laws? What right does America have to thwart the desires of people from other countries? I’ve never before seen a political debate in this country in which the nub is, blatantly: What right do we have to exist?

Paul T. writes:

Paul K wrote: “I’ve never before seen a political debate in this country in which the nub is, blatantly: What right do we have to exist?”

Once again, Jews have been the canary in the coal mine. Israel is the only other country whose right to exist has been widely and persistently questioned, again essentially on human-rights grounds (as liberals conceive them). Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before the USA got the same treatment.

LA replies:

I agree in part and disagree in part. Certainly Israel is the country whose very right to exist is denied by much of the world. But I think modern liberalism essentially denies the right of any historically white, Western, Christian country to exist as such. If Israel had not existed, modern liberalism with its implicit delegitimization of all Western nations would still have existed.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 27, 2006 11:09 AM | Send