Tom Junod, a writer for Esquire magazine, has written a compelling (and long) essay about George Bush titled, “The Case For George Bush.” 
Obviously a liberal, Junod examines what he believes about Bush and why.
The gist of the piece is that Bush’s style, which Junod doesn’t like, doesn’t (or shouldn’t) obscure Bush’s substance — his moral pronouncement that Islamofascism is “an unequivocal evil” and that we are “morally superior to it.”
I recommend this essay for both sides of the political landscape, but especially for liberals, who really believe that appeasement politics (and the approval of the French) is the way to defeat people who don’t care if they die trying to kill you.
I admit that I am partisan. I am a conservative who believes that conservatism is better for America socially, financially, morally and politically. I’ll go to my grave believing it with every fiber in my being, from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet. Consequently, I’m drawn to articles that highlight positive aspects of Bush’s policies. At the same time, I’m not repelled by negative criticism; the criticism has to be placed in a rational context. Junod’s article does just that. He writes:
George W. Bush is an a**hole, isn’t he? Moreover, he’s the first president who seems merely that, at least in my lifetime. From Kennedy to Clinton, there is not a single president who would have been capable of striking such a pose after concluding a speech about a war in which hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis are being killed. There is not a single president for whom such a pose would seem entirely characteristic — not a single president who might be tempted to confuse a beefcakey photo opportunity with an expression of national purpose. He has always struck me as a small man, or at least as a man too small for the task at hand, and therefore a man doomed to address the discrepancy between his soul and his situation with displays of political muscle that succeed only in drawing attention to his diminution. He not only has led us into war, he seems to get off on war, and it’s the greedy pleasure he so clearly gets from flexing his biceps or from squaring his shoulders and setting his jaw or from landing a plane on an aircraft carrier — the greedy pleasure the war president finds in playacting his own attitudes of belligerence — that permitted me the greedy pleasure of hating him.
Then I read the text of the speech he gave and was thrown from one kind of certaint — the comfortable kind — into another. He was speaking, as he always does, of the moral underpinnings of our mission in Iraq. He was comparing, as he always does, the challenge that we face, in the evil of global terrorism, to the challenge our fathers and grandfathers faced, in the evil of fascism. He was insisting, as he always does, that the evil of global terrorism is exactly that, an evil — one of almost transcendent dimension that quite simply must be met, lest we be remembered for not meeting it . . . lest we allow it to be our judge. I agreed with most of what he said, as I often do when he’s defining matters of principle. No, more than that, I thought that he was defining principles that desperately needed defining, with a clarity that those of my own political stripe demonstrate only when they’re decrying either his policies or his character. He was making a moral proposition upon which he was basing his entire presidency — or said he was basing his entire presidency — and I found myself in the strange position of buying into the proposition without buying into the presidency, of buying into the words while rejecting, utterly, the man who spoke them.
I believe that if liberals examined the moral issues involved in fighting the war and directed their discontent with Bush to the scourge of terrorism and bloodthirty Islamofascism, their anger would be better served. Bush is but one man albeit a man with a lot of power. But leftist hatred for the man is unlike anything I’ve seen. Republicans didn’t hate Clinton, a master manipulator, with this viciousness and contempt.
Focusing on the morality of war may be difficult for most liberals to do. One has to believe in Truth, that there are moral absolutes in this world in order to judge one thing as “bad” and the other as “good.” Without this ability to discern, one can make a case that we had no right to unseat and capture Saddam Hussein. While he’s writing poetry in prison, his victims are in their graves or walking around with missing limbs and are otherwise traumatized by his evil machinations. Junod has a grasp of this liberal mentality:
What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his [President Bush] call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion….
I, for one, believe it is and feel somewhat ashamed having to say so: having to aver that 9/11/01 was a horror sufficient to supply Bush with a genuine moral cause rather than, as some would have it, a mere excuse for his adventurism….
Ashamed or not, Junod has to admit the truth.
Junod’s piece is a good segue to another article. Dean Esmay commented on a blog post by writer Virginia Postrel, “The Voice of Fear.” Postrel writes:
When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters’ fears of terrorism. It’s not rational, but it’s psychologically plausible — blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over.
I don’t think liberals hate Bush because of fear of another attack. They hate Bush because he’s a Christian. Here’s my response to Dean’s post:
On Postrel’s explanation — That’s not all there is to it by a long shot. The left’s hatred of Bush has more to do with his being a Christian than any war on terrorism. Upholding absolute moral standards turns people off, especially coming from someone occupying a powerful office. Fear, resentment, disgust — whatever adjectives people want to use — are definitely part of the hatred, but morality and faith in Jesus Christ are by far the biggest reasons.
I am convinced that Bush’s faith in Christ scares the daylights out of the unbelieving, whether they admit it or not. Let’s assume there is no God and all Christians are deluding themselves. After we die, that’s it. No resurrection, no eternal life. But what if Christians are right? What if Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, returns to judge the world, just as He said He would?
Wouldn’t you rather err on the side of believing and struggling with your faith than living as if there were no consequences to the innumerable evil acts you commit in a lifetime? What if this God is gracious and merciful to forgive every single one of your sins? I know where I stand.
Thanks very much for writing about this article. I’m a new vistor to your site, and very impressed by what I’ve read so far.
>Ashamed or not, Junod has to admit the truth.
The wonderful thing about being on the side of truth is that it speaks for itself. Junod admits the hatred of Bush is “personal” based on Bush’s “person”; but Junod cannot deny the undeniable truth that Bush speaks.
The truth will out no matter what “persons” speak it and not matter what “persons” try to stop it.
Comment by Joanna Smith — 07.29.04 @ 9:22 am
Perhaps Junod is on his way to knowing the Truth. Sometimes the truth is harder to swallow than a lie.
Comment by JasonH — 07.29.04 @ 10:26 am
Another must-read article:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39691
Comment by Gin — 07.29.04 @ 11:24 am
La Shawn, your last paragraph is very interesting and compelling. I have thought of that many times, but never thought to use it on my non-Christian or anti-Christian friends because I didn’t know if it was a right apologetics method, if it can be called that. But now I don’t see anything wrong with using it. Thank you.
Comment by noah — 07.29.04 @ 11:29 am
Thanks for bringing that editorial to my attention! It’s very interesting to see the tide turn for Bush is so many circles.
La Shawn, check out Denzel over on World Net Daily.
Comment by RepJ — 07.29.04 @ 11:39 am
The Case for George W. Bush
Thank you, La Shawn, for pointing out a very interesting article I would have missed had you not seen it, first. And I also enjoy your thoughts on it. Now, the rest of you are wondering what in the world…
Trackback by Bunker Mulligan — 07.29.04 @ 12:53 pm
Turning Tide?
Hmmmm I wonder.
Sit down for a moment, let me tell you what happened to me . . .
I went top Jaspers after work yesterday, I sat at the bar and had dinner.
The convention was on.
I was listening to the people next to me, all well-to-do black men (OK-they dressed like they were well to do), and they were talking about how excited they were about the Edwards/Kerry ticket (heehaw My Badd, my badd, I mean Kerry/Edwards). They never said why (and I didn’t ask).
Don’t call me Yella, the bar was full of Bush haters! I wasn’t going to start a bar brawl by my one’zs
The convo turned to the movie 911.
One patron asked another if he thought there was truth to the movie.
The dude at the bar said (with great authority mind you), ‘I would say that 85 percent of what’s in the movie is true . . . It lines up with everything I’ve seen’.
Hmmmmmmm
At that point I had to leave or risk ‘inciting a riot’ charge.
So I left feeling as if I wanted to beam to another planet. Wondering where I can go to eat with some conservatives. Or even a mix where people actually have open minds and choose to think.
Turning Tide? We shall see.
Yoda: Are you afraid?
Luke: No
Yoda: You will be . . . you will be!
Peace,
JJ
Comment by John C James III — 07.29.04 @ 12:58 pm
*Hands the paper bag to JJ and adds laughing gas to it this time* (That’s how it’s done, Cousin Beau)
You’ll be feeling mellow in no time, JJ, and no riot charges, either…Lol.
Comment by Kiki B. — 07.29.04 @ 4:00 pm
Once again excellent. The problem is that people cannot handle moral absolutes because it gives them no excuses for their ill-gotten behavior. Therefore they hate anyone who dares to pose that there is right and wrong. That is why so many people found Bill Clinton so likeable. He stood for nothing.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 07.29.04 @ 5:22 pm
Making The Case
LaShawn Barber points out a “must-read” article. At least it’s a must-read if you’re one of those liberals that’s been watching the Democrat’s Convention with breathless anticipation. The Case for George W. Bush acknowledges some of Bush’s fault…
Trackback by Army of One — 07.29.04 @ 5:46 pm
A horror sufficient to supply Bush with a genuine moral cause
So, if you’re like me, you’re looking for something decent to read (and think deeply about) while awaiting John Kerry’s big speech tonight. Here’s the cure for what ails you. La Shawn Barber’s ‘The Case For George Bush’ takes a
Trackback by Brutally Honest — 07.29.04 @ 5:49 pm
“Yoda: You will be . . . you will be!” LOL, Thanks for the reminder. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see for whoom the bells toll. My hunch is if for some reason that Bush wins by a landslide, the dems won’t recover until they clean house of the moonbats–to cHillary’s greatest heartbreak
Comment by Andy — 07.29.04 @ 6:03 pm
Joanna - Welcome to the blog! I hope you visit often.
Thanks for the comments and trackbacks, everyone!
Comment by La Shawn — 07.29.04 @ 8:18 pm
Y B 4 Bush?
La Shawn Barber brings to our attention an essay by one such Liberal ( Tom Junrod, in Esquire ), and then writes on the subject herself…
Even Liberals are making the Case for 4 more years of George Bush.
Trackback by Sneakeasy's Joint — 07.30.04 @ 1:32 pm
LaShawn. Great call. This article really inspired me to consider the gravity of the choice we face this fall–and how, left or right, Bush may be the candidate with a foundational grasp of the challenges ahead.
If you are interested, I commented on this article a week ago when I found it. Tom was my “Profile in Liberty” of the day.
Comment by John — 07.31.04 @ 8:25 pm
Awe MAN! another JOHN?
Kiki B, Thanks for the Happy Gas. I’m feelin much better!
Kiki B. do me a favor. Bring me around in time to cast my vote.
.oO0{Is there enough gas here to keep me going till election day?}
Comment by John C James III — 08.01.04 @ 5:55 pm
“Let’s assume there is no God and all Christians are deluding themselves. After we die, that’s it. No resurrection, no eternal life. But what if Christians are right? What if Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, returns to judge the world, just as He said He would?
Wouldn’t you rather err on the side of believing and struggling with your faith than living as if there were no consequences to the innumerable evil acts you commit in a lifetime? What if this God is gracious and merciful to forgive every single one of your sins? I know where I stand.”
This is known as Pascal’s Wager, and it has been around for several hundred years. While there is a certain sense to it, it breaks down in the details. So it is less risky to believe in God, but which God do you believe in? The Catholic one? The Lutheran one? Mormon? Baptist? If you pick wrong and God is punitive, you’re still screwed. Faith should come from prayer, thought and meditation, it’s not an insurance policy. If you really believe that God doesn’t exist, you should live your life that way, knowing there may be consequences if you’re wrong. Forced faith is no faith at all.
Lastly, think about this: much of the arguments in favor of the Kyoto Accords are like Pascal’s Wager: we don’t know if it’s happening for sure, but imagine the consequences if we ignore global warming and we’re wrong….
Comment by Dave — 08.03.04 @ 10:49 am
With laser-guided accuracy, you have shot past the symptoms and diagnosed the sickness. The leftists hate President Bush because he espouses moral absolutes. In the world of liberalism, there is no right nor wrong. Everything is a shade of grey. In a world with moral boundaries, liberals have meager arguments, at best, supporting their viewpoints.
Comment by Interested-Participant — 08.03.04 @ 2:48 pm
Carnival of the Vanities #98
<Alternately Drunk and Sober Multi-day Post> It’s the 98th Carnival of the Vanities During summer in America one sees carnivals springing up all over the country, and, at least here in California, carnivals mean one thing: Drugs. Lots of drugs….
Trackback by seldom sober — 08.03.04 @ 9:34 pm
Carnival of the Vanities #98
<Alternately Drunk and Sober Multi-day Post> It’s the 98th Carnival of the Vanities During summer in America one sees carnivals springing up all over the country, and, at least here in California, carnivals mean one thing: Drugs. Lots of drugs….
Trackback by seldom sober — 08.04.04 @ 4:55 am