BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Hating President Bush

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
18:49 / 25.09.03
Sleaze - I never said Stalin was irreplacable - although oddly I nearly used the word 'implacable' - but I can't spell it.

Stalin died in 1953 aged 73. Khrushchev delivered the 'Personality Cult and its Consequences' speech to the 20th Party Congress in '56. There was a brief thaw (Khrushchev's foreign policy was one of peaceful co-existence), but the Soviet apparat was not ready to give up its quasi-imperial status or its heavy-handed stability (remember, since at least the December Uprising of 1905, Russia had been in a state of turmoil: the first World War, then civil war until 1920 with the usual consequence of famine, then Lenin's New Economic Policy followed by the converse, De-Kulakisation and the Five Year Plans, and Stalin's Purges through the '30s, then WWII in which as many as twenty million Russians died) and so the Hungarian uprising was brutally put down, and Khrushchev was suddenly fighting a rearguard action to keep his position.

Khrushchev was followed by Brezhnev, basically a bureaucrat with a brief to keep things predictable. Enough brinkmanship and enough reform. Brezhnev was born in 1906, and he and his generation were more arguably conservative than those who had preceeded them. They had only ever seen confusion and chaos, and they hated it. They wanted order at any cost. It was only when, basically, they died out, that Gorbachev took over and began the thaw - in the face of opposition from conservatives from his own generation who really had only known war and Cold War. I don't think the collapse took that long, all things considered.

I do seem to remember that story about Hitler being a lousy strategist. If so, he wouldn't be the only one.

Jack - I don't think W.'s ignorance is an act - I just think that there's a tendency on the left to think that because he's inarticulate he's a sock-puppet. From the biography, you get the impression that this is a guy with a gut-level understanding of bare-knuckle politics; a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth who has always seen the way smoothed for him and believes that's how it oughta be. Combine that with a reformed badboy and I see a potent mix.

I tend to agree about the gun on the coffeetable, by the way, though I think the results of firing it depend heavily on who picks it up and what they say before they pull the trigger.
 
 
Professor Silly
21:28 / 25.09.03
"I'm not convinced of your explanation either because, as can be seen by history, charismatic, magnetic and ruthless leaders, e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc are often irreplaceable once they have been removed, frequently because they themselves have purged anyone with any popularity as a threat to their leadership."

One name: Gehlen

This man foresaw the fall of Hitler and arranged an out--and he ended up working for America (against American law)...specifically the CIA.

So in the long run, one could say that those really in charge never lose--they just change sides when the chips are down.
 
 
SMS
22:41 / 25.09.03
So, I guess what I'm hearing is that my fears are well-founded. We started off with a suggestion that those people who say they hate Bush (or consider him the moral equivalent of Hitler, etc.) do not, in fact, really hate him but are merely trying to be cool.

Someone else suggested that leftists don't resort to violence, because that isn't consistent with their liberal philosophy.

Then someone suggested that Bush ought to be assassinated, and someone else said he was merely tempted. This seems seriously to undermine both the other arguments. And now, we seem to be discussing whether it is ever rational or justified to assassinate a tyrant like, say, Hitler or Bush.

No one has thought that there is any point in defending Bush or trying to distinguish between Hitler and Bush in a significant way, but argument has been an analysis of whether Nick's argument for pacifism (hope that's fair) holds up under the test of history. Likewise, the worst thing that I'm hearing about assassination is that it would do more harm than good---it would make Bush a martyr for the cause, or something.

Okay, so, sorry about a summary, but I'm trying to see how this relates to my question, and, it seems to me that if a discussion about the risk of Bush being assassinated naturally gravitates towards the justification of the very thing, and if the people in the discussion are not generally disturbed, then I think that the risk is really, really big.

It is true that assassins/would-be assassins in the past have been real nutjobs, acting out of delusion; it also seems to me that the atmosphere today would not require these Jodi-Foster-will-love-me or I-deserve-John-Lennon's-fame delusions. If someone were to do such a horrible thing, I would expect someone who has been gathering information off the internet, news articles, and the like, and has become frustrated with it all.

And it isn't hard to find people anywhere on the political spectrum who don't buy Nick's arguments, as noble as they are.

So, what might convince me that I'm making a bigger deal of this than I should would be to show that there isn't any significant difference in the contempt people hold for Bush and the contempt people held for, um, Carter or Reagan or Clinton.
 
 
Guy Parsons
03:38 / 28.09.03
I tentatively propose that assasinating dictators and totalitarian leaders is more likely to "work" (i.e: acheive the aims that motivated it) than the leader of a democracy (insert "the election was a fix" comments here.) In the latter case, the man is a much less significant component in the political machine - the system is designed, I suppose, to have that certain failsafeness about it in which the status quo is safeguarded against exogenous shocks.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:43 / 28.09.03
T-Shirts declare [Bush] an international terrorist, people refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the election; they call him a tyrant, a fundamentalist, and the greatest threat to world security. - SMS

Thing is, SMS, these positions are quite tenable. So, rather than seeing them as evidence of irrational hatred of a single politician, they might also be seen as evidence of the flavour and incidents of Bush's leadership.

The question is whether those feelings translate into assassination. I don't think so. Even though I think Bush's presidency is illegitimate, the US remains a democracy in which it would be wrong to assassinate the leader. That would be a pretty common view, IMO.

Personally, a regime would have to be a pretty unpalatable dictatorship before I would even consider assassination as valid. And even then, I would probably back away from it.

Plus, some disturbed individuals aside, few people have the capacity to plan and execute this kind of murder. It still might happen,of course, but I don't think it is any more likely than it was with Clinton, say.
 
 
Rage
13:02 / 28.09.03
I find it fascinating that he hasn't been assassinated yet. Freaky, even. W... T... F?

People aren't gonna be analyzing Geroge W Bush's mind in fascist underground circles. He'll go down as the most hated president in history, maybe, but there's no way he's gonna have the forbidden appeal that Hitler does.

Or even Marilyn Manson, for that matter.
 
 
Professor Silly
16:36 / 28.09.03
I don't but the lone nut assassin thing either--take for example the attempt on Reagan. Hinkley Jr. was the son of one of VP Bush's very good friends, and one could hardly argue that Reagan's performance wasn't very different after the attempt. Others have suggested that the "alzheimers" might have been brought about by injecting Reagan with trace quantities of heavy metals while in the hospital after the attempt. This makes sense given the VP's connection to the CIA (which again has ties to the Nazi's after the end of WWII.

I think we have some very evil people in office.

and still I don't see assassination as a worthwhile path. Killing doesn't destroy nearly as well as scandal. What we really need is to find Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft discovered in a hotel room with a dozen drugged-up underage boys, Satanic impliments, and lots of semen stains. That would topple the bastards.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:52 / 29.09.03
Mmmm... a little off-topic, perhaps, but what moral position would people take on a reversal of the intention of an assassination - i.e. the assassination of a "good guy"?

The line that "assassination would only strengthen Bush's cause" has been mentioned quite a lot in this thread, and is almost certainly true.

... And surely this would apply to anyone who was assassinated. So, could one justify the assassination of, for example, a very prolific pro-peace figure in the run-up to a war, so that it would be passed off as the work of a pro-war nutcase, and thus swing public opinion significantly against the war, and hopefully save thousands of lives?

What about the assassination of a leading Democrat just before a very close election, in order to swing the public's vote and hopefully ensure the election of a government with marginally less despicable policies?

Etc, etc...

(And is this just another strand of the, "Is it justifiable to murder one person to save ten?" argument?)
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:55 / 29.09.03
if a discussion about the risk of Bush being assassinated naturally gravitates towards the justification of the very thing, and if the people in the discussion are not generally disturbed, then I think that the risk is really, really big.

The first thing discussed in my house on hearing that Bush had been sworn in was assassination. It's likely with anyone who has a fundamentalist attitude, and particularly one that leans towards fascism, that the left wing will consider assassinating that person. So yes there is a risk of it happening but it shouldn't because the window has gone- he's the president and he must not be idolised in the same way as Lincoln and Kennedy (or someone like Churchill for that matter). Bush needs to be thrown out by the American people, they need to decide to get rid of him, any force now will work against the people who kill him or speak out against him.
 
 
Baz Auckland
12:46 / 29.09.03
What about the assassination of a leading Democrat just before a very close election, in order to swing the public's vote and hopefully ensure the election of a government with marginally less despicable policies?

When George Wallace was shot in '68(or was it '72?) he lost support and votes, and Nixon won by a larger margin. No sympathy there. And unfortunately, when Yitzhak Rabin was assasinated in the mid-90s, the whole peace thing didn't continue in Israel....

...and last week when the Swedish finance minister was killed, the papers predicted a sympathy vote for the Euro, but that to failed to appear...

Maybe it's easier to be reactionary than progessive? or are the former just better organised?
 
 
GreenMann
13:12 / 29.09.03
Anna de Logardiere,

"Bush needs to be thrown out by the American people, they need to decide to get rid of him."

The problem is that you can't put a rizzla between the only 2 US parties so, not surprisingly, only around half of all Americans bother to vote.

That means that even if Bush does get "thrown out" only around a quarter of Americans will have done so, the other 25% or so voting for the so-called "winner".

Whether its Bush or the other guy, US democracy itself is a fraud and, whoever gets in, US foreign policy will, as history shows, remain the same (e.g. political military protection of US businesses and looting of foreign natural resources).
 
 
Pingle!Pop
13:44 / 29.09.03
When George Wallace was shot in '68(or was it '72?) he lost support and votes, and Nixon won by a larger margin. No sympathy there. And unfortunately, when Yitzhak Rabin was assasinated in the mid-90s, the whole peace thing didn't continue in Israel....

...and last week when the Swedish finance minister was killed, the papers predicted a sympathy vote for the Euro, but that to failed to appear...


How... odd. So do all such precedents suggest that the right tend to benefit quite nicely from public sympathy when one of their number are shot, whereas noone is quite so bothered when the same happens to lefties and liberals? Or are there other examples? Are there cases where the Republican party has faced worse opinion polls following an assassination, or where any figures on the left have had a surge in support?

How come?

Does it follow that a public figure only benefits from the additional support by being assassinated if they already had majority support anyway?
 
 
Baz Auckland
13:52 / 29.09.03
Ah, but George Wallace back then was quite the right-winger, hence why he was a danger to Nixon's re-election.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
14:04 / 29.09.03
Tempting as it is to ask to have my above post moderated to save embarassment:

a) I wouldn't change it if I were a moderator
b) I've no claim to having anywhere near an impeccable knowledge of American political history.

What precedents do exist, then? How often does assassination benefit the, er, assassinatee? What conditions usually have to be met in order for this to be the case? Can we, as easily as everyone, including myself, seems to have thought, assume that the assassination of GWB would see Republican poll ratings soar?
 
 
Baz Auckland
15:52 / 29.09.03
Can we, as easily as everyone, including myself, seems to have thought, assume that the assassination of GWB would see Republican poll ratings soar?

Maybe the successor to Bush would have to have the appeal that he seems to have to many. I doubt Chaney would be as useful in the appearance and charisma areas... Unless they replaced Chaney with Powell or something as head of the country in the aftermath I can't see Republicans benefitting from the death, other than the benefits that would be given to any killed president. I can see both parties trying to benefit from it, but I can't see Americans voting for Cheney because Bush is dead...

Would Johnson have become president if Kennedy lived?
 
 
grant
18:52 / 29.09.03
Would Johnson have become president if Kennedy lived?

I'd imagine not. He was a bit contentious.
And Kennedy, as history has shown, was not a universally popular figure.
He was involved in shady stuff anyway, and there were plenty of people who weren't exactly crying over the magic bullet.

Upstream, somebody said...
Plus, some disturbed individuals aside, few people have the capacity to plan and execute this kind of murder. It still might happen,of course, but I don't think it is any more likely than it was with Clinton, say.

Well, imagine if Timothy McVeigh had undergone sniper training. He was a Persian Gulf veteran who did what he did as a political act. It was not an assassination, but still. He had the will, he found the means.
The first round of soldiers are back home from Afghanistan now, and some portion of them are inevitably going to have been changed by what happened over there.
They might be "disturbed individuals" but they probably wouldn't act out of devotion to Jodie Foster... more out of vengeance for a ruined marriage, or an inability to hold down a customer service job.

There was a story on the radio Friday that had interviews with some of the soldiers home from Afghanistan -- because the Army has started a new program aimed at keeping these vets better adjusted than McVeigh and the DC snipers.

Here's a brief excerpt (full story, audio only, at the link):
Specialist Roger Lint(ph) is a thin 21-year-old with huge blue eyes who looks more like a poet than a soldier. In his unit he was known as the man to talk to, the smart guy who got along with everyone. And while Lint doesn't think the war has altered his basic character, he does feel the experience has changed him.

Specialist ROGER LINT (US Soldier): I am a definitely a lot more combative then I was, a lot more aggressive, you know. 'Cause over there we were the law; anything we said went, you know, whether they liked it or not. Basically we treated them like animals. You know, that's how we had to treat them. You know, 'cause they're used to a dictator so they only respond by a show of force; that's the only you can tell 'em anything. You can shout at 'em, 'Turn around, go away,' but they're not going to listen to you till you point a .50 cal at 'em, you know? And suddenly you view yourself as the master, you know.

SPIEGEL: Now that he's back in the states, Specialist Lint finds this attitude difficult to shake.

Spc. LINT: It's just--you get so used to, you know, forcing them to do something. And you come back and it's the same thing all over again. Somebody does the wrong thing, your initial response is, you know, force them to do it. I've had that impulse a few times. I know I accidentally shoved a few people during the reunion.

SPIEGEL: A tall soldier who asked not to be identified said more or less the same thing, that whenever they were challenged in Iraq they used force--'Snatched them the hell up' is how he phrased it--and that this impulse keeps surfacing even when he doesn't want it to.

Unidentified Soldier: Last night inside of Blockbuster, you know, this lady got smart on me, you know, and I wanted to reach for her and, you know, snatch her the hell up, you know.


In 2002, there was another rash of murders at Ft. Bragg, too. Weird, violent shit happens there all the time, but still.
 
 
grant
15:24 / 30.09.03
In other words, you've got a pool of potential assassins right there. They've got the training, the experience. All they need is a little motivation, and bang. bang. bang.

I'm pretty sure the gov't keeps real close tabs on that sort of thing, but still.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply