Comments on: Bush Derangement Syndrome

by: Flewellyn

Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:14:20 +0000

As for “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, I think the derangement in question is the right wing insistence that we judge each and every action of Bush’s in complete isolation, ignoring entirely the history of his past actions and their consequences, and indeed ignoring the passage of time altogether.

How else could we end up with right wingers insisting, as at least one has in comments on this blog, that there is some hypocrisy in Democratic opposition to the “surge” proposal? “Well, you’ve been saying all along that we should have used more troops, and now that Bush is going to, you don’t want ‘em!” I hear some of them say, in all seriousness, apparently unaware of the fact that, when the Democrats originally insisted that Bush should use more troops, this was three years ago, and circumstances were vastly different. Moreover, circumstances have changed so much that, what would have worked (maybe) three years ago, is now utterly futile. But to the right wingers who espouse these arguments, such a simple thing as the passage of time seems not to have registered.

The absolute childishness of this mindset can’t be overstated. I’m not using the term “childish” solely to mean selfish and shortsighted, but in a literal way: as anyone who has studied child development knows, young children, from toddler age sometimes up to kindergarten, often have difficulties understanding the passage of time, cause and effect, and that circumstances change based on what has happened before. Most children grow to understand these fundamentals of existence by the time they get into school, but apparently some do not.

That I associate this form of stunted development with the right wing is no accident. I happen to believe that a great many of the incomprehensible actions of the right are explicable once we understand them as a form of immaturity. Rampant sexism and homophobia call to mind the early adolescent “girls are grody!” mindset, and the profound discomfort with one’s own sexuality; blind nationalism and devotion to symbols and people regardless of their failings sounds an awful lot like “you were talkin’ about my momma!”; and the desire to beat up anyone who they disagree with sure sounds like “my daddy can beat up your daddy!” to me.

by: Flewellyn

Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:53:37 +0000

tzs, I just wanted to say that your response reminded me of some of the best literary examples of righteous indignation. Wonderful stuff.

by: Xanthippas

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:08:40 +0000

I don’t hate Bush. I could never hate someone I don’t personally know. But I dislike almost everything he’s done in office, and think he’s a terrible President, and tell people that all the time on my blog. Somehow I doubt the right-wingers would spare me from accusations of BDS based merely on my lack of hate however.

by: Bitter Scribe

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:14:41 +0000

Let’s face it. Some people are just hateful.

by: Samantha Vimes

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:31:54 +0000

… speaking of the “but they behead people!” argument, I’ve never understood why that is supposed to be worse than our military kicking a taxicab driver to death because they thought it was funny to hear him cry out to Allah in his pain. I guess for some people, it isn’t the cruelty of the action, but the belief that Americans are human and others just don’t matter. And that sort of thinking disgusts me as much as Bush does.

by: Dan

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:19:33 +0000

Again, I’m no fan of Bush, but to claim that he is “the very reason�? that terrorists attack Americans is silly (he’s one of many reasons).

Of course it is. So is condemning me for saying something that I didn’t actually say.

Well, that’s not “silly” so much as “sociopathic.” QED.

by: D

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:39:49 +0000

RM, for some reason your list seems devoid of beheadings carried out in Iraq. You seem to have at some point mixed calling Bush on his responsibility for putting Americans in harms way in Iraq with blaming him for pre-existing terrorist groups.
And I believe your sociopathy comes from being unable to fathom the emotions of those who have been hurt by Bush’s actions those empathic enough that they can feel said emotions.

by: Raging Moderate

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:41:27 +0000

“Show me the numbers. Take your time. I’ll wait.”

Just off the top of my head I can think of:

1993 - World Trade Center Bombing - 3 dead.

1998 - US Embassy bombings - over 200 dead.

2000 - Bombing of the USS Cole - 17 dead.

Again, I’m no fan of Bush, but to claim that he is “the very reason” that terrorists attack Americans is silly (he’s one of many reasons). It’s no different than those on the right who blame Carter for the terrorism that is occurring today.

“Now your sociopathy is a part of a movement sociopathy, and you may not be sociopathic in your daily dealings with people, but it’s worth noting that lack of empathy is not a sign of mental health, but the opposite”

I’m a sociopath because I don’t believe that Bush is “the very reason” that terrorists kill people?

“The right’s reaction to Clinton is a good parallel, and however hypocritical it is for those same people to turn around and mock such a reaction in others, it’s not a reaction I particularly want to see in myself.

So the gruntings of “BDS�? may be the territorial calls of dumb animals; but it’s folks on our side of the fence who are keeping those critters well-fed.”

Hear, hear. Hypocrisy should always be condemned, regardless of the political leanings of the hypocrite.

by: Sharon

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:27:58 +0000

I’ve never felt compelled to apologize for loathing Bush, especially to a bunch of evangelical scat-munchers who writhe and howl like extras in “The Crucible” at the mention of Bill Clinton. Besides, as Edward Sorel once said, “Until I think of someone I’d like to kill, I can’t get out of bed in the morning.” George W. is my alarm clock.

by: Molly, NYC

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:11:51 +0000

Cool trick: In any he-said-she-said situation, if the man is one who’s lying, he won’t usually bother to refute the woman with facts or logic (especially if his case is weak). He’ll attack her personally, usually impugning her sanity (or less often, her chastity). And it works appallingly well when his audience is mostly other men and the sort of women who are afraid someone might call them a feminist. (Remember Anita Hill?) So when you hear a man talking about how some woman is crazy, unless she’s literally depending on meds to keep it together, you can reasonably assume that he’s lying through his teeth. (This is far more reliable than that meme about using the passive voice.)

Anyway, this BDS crapola is sort of the same mechanism.