Jabber Hockey!

Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O Frabjous Day! Callooh! Callay! He chortled in his joy.

I confess I didn’t watch much of the inaugural ceremony.  I knew it would be sickening, not because I so dislike Barack Hussein Obama, but because I disdain the self-congratulatory chauvinism that has surrounded every aspect of this election.  Perhaps there is nothing intrinsically wrong with celebrating the accomplishment of a man of African descent becoming president of the United States.  Still, creating sentimental claptrap to further a cynical political agenda cannot be right.

Let’s face it:  we’ve known for years that a woman or a person of color could win the presidency.  Colin Powell might well have won the office in 1996 had he run.  It is more than possible that Condi Rice could have been the Republican standard bearer this year had she had the requisite desire.  The Left tried hard not to take notice of their rise or that of other non-white conservative luminaries like S.I. Hawakaya or Bobby Jindal.  The reason for this, of course, is that their success does not further the racial mythology of the far Left.

Socialists always decry racial prejudice until some person of color rises in Republican or conservative circles. If they cannot safely ignore him or her, which is to say, if they fear the conservative leader may create a following, they launch a full-out assault that any terrorist could envy.  Remember when Colin Powell and Condi Rice shattered the political glass ceiling to become the highest ranked blacks in US history?  The Left wasted no time before lofting hate-filled verbal bombs that employed the most virulent and racist invective.  Then while most Americans were embracing the candidacy of Sarah Palin, the Left lobbed every conceivable barb no matter how sexist or offensive.  And let’s never forget when the Democrats and their minions in the Press spared no racist stereotype in depicting Judge Clarence Thomas as an uncontrollable sex-crazed fiend.

But, suddenly last November, when a black man conceived in the Left’s own image advanced to high office, liberals gushed that Americans had risen above their bigotry and  their violent history to choose finally a worthy leader.  And so today we witnessed an inauguration unlike any other in history, one that more closely resembled a religious tent meeting.

The whole thing was too pat and too smug, not to mention too obviously self promoting.  So forgive me if this nonsense moves me not to cries of thanksgiving.

Shun the fruminous bandersnatch!


President Bush Departs

I watched some of the president’s final news conference, and I was struck by the defense (finally!) of his actions in Iraq. Where was this spirited defense when we were most in want of it?  Ever since his re-election in 2004, this Bush has been MIA when it came to defending conservatism or the war!

The poor Bushes, père and fil, share one thing in common, and that is an abiding belief that they will be loved or at least tolerated if they make nice with their enemies.  Fortunately, W knows that won’t work with the terrorists, but despite all the evidence that it doesn’t work with political enemies either, he kept it up for four long years.  Worse, in the same misguided effort to co-opt liberal issues, he failed to veto outrageous spending bills or use his executive power to rein in bureaucrats and legislators who were allowing, and in some cases prescribing, bad banking policies that led to the near collapse of the financial sector.

I watched his farewell address with mixed emotions.  At times, I was moved, but in the end it was just another formulaic attempt to tug at our politically-correct heartstrings.  The president may have been sincere; nevertheless, his singling out two blacks and an Hispanic to laud as heroes smacked of political opportunism and tokenism.  One just couldn’t suspend the belief that they were there not for their individual heroics but for the sake of identity politics.  And that’s a shame, because I am sure they are truly heroes.

In the end, the Bush presidency reflected the failure of the heirs of Ronald Reagan to pursue his quintessential American agenda.  Beginning with G. H. W. Bush’s unfortunate call for a kinder, gentler America, they betrayed their doubts about Reaganism and opened themselves up to ridicule for espousing a philosophy they didn’t seem to believe. They didn’t share Reagan’s total faith in the free enterprise system or in an individual’s capacity to take care of himself.  Nothing made that clearer than Clinton’s two terms in office.  Really, what was the difference in policies between the Bushes and the Clintons?  They all come across as phonies.

The Bushes remind me of teachers who know what they ought to do but so want to be loved that they don’t dare do it.  They may seem to prosper, but their students are not fooled.  They smirk at them behind their backs as they don’t truly respect them because they know they either don’t have the strength of their convictions or their convictions are a put-on.  And as for affection, who can truly love that which they despise.  Thus, here is the politically-correct world we now inhabit. Even our conservatives fear to adhere to traditional standards.  And the Bushes’ reward, like that of those humbug teachers, is to be reviled with even more vitriol than that meted out to the true Blue believers.

After all, polls consistently show that Ronald Reagan is the most revered president since Eisenhower.  Who is number two?  It is not war hero, George H. W. Bush, or even his son who kept the country safe for the first seven years of the War on Terrorism.  It is not Jerry Ford who restored decency to the office of the president nor is it the earnest Jimmy Carter.  Obviously, it is not the brilliant but mercurial Richard Nixon or his predecessor, the sad old LBJ, who gave us the Great Society.  And it isn’t even the sainted martyred president, John F. Kennedy.  That’s right!  It’s that lovable rascal, Bill Clinton, who never made any bones about his phoniness.