The Cult of Bush

It's a truly interesting experience to watch when debated points and observations about the sometime idiocy of humans are verified. Such an episode has occurred and can be enjoyed by reading the virulent reactions Glenn Greenwald has received on his Feb 12, 2006 post “Do Bush followers have a political ideology?”. Stunning in it's clarity and honesty, the post has generated reactions that prove a central tenet of it's premise – for many, Bushism is a cultlike following, devoid of reason and conservatives are expected to exhibit blind loyalty to him – because he is Bush. To object to Bush in any way is to be labeled a liberal and the more objections that are voiced, the more liberal you are deemed to be. Years ago, the labels 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' were used to describe political viewpoints and beliefs, now the acolytes of Bush use them as a brand to measure obedience to the cult.

As stated by Greenwald in his response to comments received:

So, they label the argument and the person making it "leftist" and "liberal" and - presto! - no more need to address the arguments or consider its substance because it’s all been shooed away with one fell swoop of name-calling cliches.

I mention all of this because it illustrates what I think is an important point. I’ve been blogging for just over 3 months now. It’s almost certainly the case that the only views of mine that bloggers at LGF and RWNH know are, at most, my opposition to the Administration’s various theories entitling them to violate Congressional laws and my belief that the Administration manipulates terrorist threats for domestic political gain.

In other words, they don’t actually know my political views on most issues in controversy. All they know, at most, is that I am a critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to terrorism policies and the Administration's insistence that it need not abide by the law -- opposition which, in their eyes, is more than enough to qualify me as a "leftist" or "liberal" despite not knowing if I actually subscribe to liberal views on virtually any issue. Mere opposition to the Administration, by itself, is enough to qualify one as a "leftist" or "Liberal" – which, I do believe, was one of the principal points of my post:

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based.

It is somewhat amazing to write a post describing this phenomenon only for Bush followers to deny its validity and, in doing so, provide such vibrant examples of exactly what I describing. They read the post and then rushed to dismiss what I wrote as coming from a "leftist" all because I criticized Bush and his followers. I suppose I should be grateful for the argumentative support.

Truth hurts. Label me freedom lover, label me liberal.

Posted on The Human Stain