Bush comes—not for the first time—to the Clintons’ rescue

Not being a “conservative,” and thus not being a eunuch in the palace of George W. Bush, Dick Morris delineates what is arguably the single most contemptible thing about Bush, his habit of praising and removing blame from the Clintons. (Bush’s agenda to normalize the Clintons was one of the two key reasons I did not vote for Bush in 2000.)

Morris also grasps the Bush behavior I’ve often decried, of giving back rubs to people who are stabbing him in the back:

Whether it is through political miscalculation or elitism that Bush caters to Hillary Clinton, he should stop it. Every day, she bashes him full time on the campaign trail. His kind words for her are so out of place, they are jarring.

Jarring indeed. Whether he’s nominating Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court after pledging to nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas, or whether he’s pushing Palestinian statehood after saying he would never do so until the Palestinians had dismantled terror, or whether he’s siding with the anti-American leader of Mexico against America, or whether he’s puffing up the leading Democratic candidate against his own party, Bush’s need to betray his own side, and the evident pleasure and sense of empowerment he gets from betraying his own side, are at the core of his being.

- end of initial entry -

Charles G. writes:

Statements by George Bush about the actions of the Clintons seem to be almost designed to bolster the Clintons’ political capital by making them seem acceptable to respectable society. Why? This in and of itself is not indicative of a very serious political purpose on the part of the Bush family. It makes the Bush clan look trivial, dull and uninformed about some of the most basic issues that concern Americans. And if not, then we are dealing with a family which is supremely cynical and manipulative. Toward what end?

Matthew H. writes:

Bush belongs to a class that truly feels in its bones that its right to rule is self-evident and that its ascendancy is eternal. His father was the same way. This leads them to believe that any sort of public wrangling is unseemly and that to engage in such behavior would put them at the same level as those to whom they affect to condescend. It also leads them to show to their enemies the sort of generosity that they never display toward their allies.

This is why they, and other liberals historically, have never, ever condemned the bad behavior of any minority group. Better to pat them on the head and promise to “fix” their problems for them. To speak plainly on such topics is seen as ungenerous and not in keeping with their sense of noblesse oblige.

This same sort of thinking among the American elite (and the majority of the twentieth century middle-class), the sense of unassailability, of almost god-like largesse, the sense that they could give without end even to their worst enemies, which ballooned to Olympian proportions after their triumph in World War II, is what has allowed the toxic weeds of Communism, atheism, feminism, “gay” rights, black power, et cetera to flourish in the soil of republican liberty. Hopefully, most have long since awakened from that dream.

But not President Bush. This explains his obtuse persistence in deploying our army to secure democracy for Muslims, his frightening indulgence of our secretary of state, his post-inaugural sucking up to Teddy Kennedy and on and on. It exposes his belief that the rest of humanity is so simple that they will forever remain as peasant supplicants at the court of liberalism and that their good-will can be purchased out of the infinite riches the American treasure-house. And besides, he thinks, who can touch me?

The French have a saying, “Give him your little finger and he’ll bite your arm off up to the elbow.” Bush and our still-dominant liberal elite, out of some bizarre amalgam of generosity/superiority, give them the whole arm right up front. And, of course, in true liberal fashion, it is not his own body that Bush offers up, but, piece by piece, the body of American culture which he sacrifices to purchase this fantastic vision of himself as “compassionate” super man.

LA replies:

Excellent comment. I think that over the last several years the discussions at VFR have provided the most insightful analysis of Bush’s motivations to be found anywhere.

Derek C. writes:

If you thought Hillary was going to become your successor, wouldn’t you want her in your debt—and less disposed to harangue you in your retirement with investigation after investigation? In fact, given the field of Democrats running, from Bush’s perspective Clinton is the best option. She has the least to gain by investigating Bush Administration malfeasances, since many of those charges would boomerang back at her and her husband’s administration. Obama, Edwards and the others (save maybe Richardson) have more to gain by making the Bush Administration look as bad as possible. An Obama presidency would probably see Bush and Chene testifying before one investigator after the next for years.

LA replies:

Wow. That really places in perspective Bush’s forgiving statements about the Clintons going all the way back to the late 1990s. It’s the relationship among the rulers that matters. The ground troops, thinking there’s a war between two sides that matters, are sent to fight and bleed, while the leaders on each side look out for each other—and regard their own followers with barely disguised contempt.

Charles G. writes:

LA wrote: “The ground troops, thinking there’s a war between two sides that matters, are sent to fight and bleed, while the leaders on each side look out for each other—and regard their own followers with barely disguised contempt.”

Well, I guess that answers my question.

David B. writes:

I am reminded of a White House ceremony in, I think, 2003. Bill Clinton’s portrait (or something) was being placed in the White House. GWB was welcoming Bill and Hillary as the guests of honor. Bush made the most extravagant speech praising Bill Clinton that anyone had heard in years. As I remember, he even hinted that he expected Hillary Clinton to succeed him.

Rush Limbaugh devoted nearly a whole program to the event. El Rushbo kept saying, “I can’t understand it. He praises Bill Clinton more than the Democrats do.” Naturally, liberals almost never reciprocate this good feeling that Bush displays toward them. He keeps on praising Hillary and the Bush loyalists still won’t “understand it.”

Leonard K. writes:

Bush hopes to continue the Bush-Clinton succession indefinitely, something like the Danish Christian-Frederick royal succession from 1523 to 1972. How about his nephew, George P. Bush, succeeding Hillary Clinton in 2016? Being half-Mexican, and, like his uncle, despising America, isn’t he a perfect candidate to make George W’s dream, Mexamerica, come true?

Sam H. writes:

In re the Bush discussion, isn’t it obvious why he praises the Clintons (and why is daddy is best buddies with Bill etc.)? He doesn’t want a Republican president to be elected. He couldn’t care less about Republicans, he only cares about his family’s interests. He wants Hillary to be president so that his brother can in turn succeed her. If a Republican wins the presidency, then that Republican will also run for re-election, and have a vice president not named Bush who would be the frontrunner in the race after the re-election race. It’s not in the Bush Family interest to have Jeb shut out for the next two presidential races. If Hillary wins, then Jeb can run, either to unseat her if her presidency is a failure, or run to replace her after two terms. Having a Clinton succeed a Bush who succeeded a Clinton also makes it more palatable that a Bush would then succeed that Clinton. The Bush family has made that calculation a long time ago.

LA replies:

Bush can’t seriously believe that the American people would want a third round of this.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 29, 2007 01:58 AM | Send