New Year, Same Story

The first piece this year by LA Times' political analyst Ron Brownstein is the same old story, if a bit more intensely dumb than usual.

He's trying to teach President Bush a historical lesson by comparing him to past presidents. This is always silly. Anyone can pretend old President A was good at something and new President B is bad at something, and then say "see, President B, I just taught you a valuable lesson."

Apparently Brownstein believes Bush should learn the value of consensus. His dad understood it, for example. Yes, his dad, the bureaucratic, one-term patsy, easily kicked around by the Dems (i.e., believed in "consensus"), who wouldn't have been elected in the first place if Reagan hadn't chosen his sorry ass for Veep. Of course Brownstein wants Bush the Younger to be more like that.

Brownstein warns Bush he's more like Polk who had a "highly partisan" agenda he tried to ram through despite a close victory with the voters. Brownstein claims Polk, who provoked the Mexican War, is mostly forgotten today. Really? I'd say he's fairly well-remembered among Presidents--compare to Buchanan, or Harrison (either one). And, as for me, I've always thought he was a pretty good President. But there's one way he's different from Bush. Polk was a one-termer. Bush, if he hadn't invaded Iraq, would have been destroyed in 2004 by the Democrats who, as one, would have attacked George for leaving such a dangerous man as Saddam at large. (And they would have been right. )

In any case, consensus is a two-way street. Bush had always been a wheeler-dealer politician, and in the first few months of his Presidency, invited all sorts of Dems to the White House and passed an education bill that pleased Ted Kennedy (not that the Dems showed any signs of respect--perhaps they thought they could treat him like they treated his father). But after 9/11, he felt he had to do some things. Bush went the extra mile with the UN, but when it became clear they had no interest in doing business, he did what he thought he had to do. Then he got bipartisan permission from Congress to do what he thought he had to do. Alas, as soon as the Dems thought they were safe to undermine the war on terror, they were relentless. So much for consensus.

At the end of his article, Browstein decides to insult everyone's intelligence and mentions Lincoln. This is like bringing Nazis into an argument--it's an attempt to short-circuit rational analysis. But Brownstein embarrasses himself beyond that level.

He actually has the nerve to claim, as opposed to Bush, Lincoln sought consensus. Of course Lincoln tried to hold the nation together--that's what Bush is trying to do, as well. But how did Lincoln go about it?: "You want to leave the Union? I'm going to kill you all. Congress thinks I should give in a little? Screw them! The Supreme Court thinks I'm ignoring the Constitution? Tough shit!" The reason we love Lincoln (if we do--some Southerners and Libertarians still have trouble) is because he saw above all what needed to be done, and did it, whether others liked it or not. If Bush had been one-tenth as ruthless as Lincoln, Brownstein wouldn't be comparing him to Polk, but Hitler.