Informed Speculation

I hope I can be forgiven if I find myself confused by Glenn Greenwald’s theory of the ‘Bush Cult’; it seems to be a theory that encompasses so much of reality that perhaps we have all underestimated its brilliance. Glenn assures us that there is no political ideology animating Bush supporters, that it is personal loyalty to our ‘Fuhrer’ that is our defining characteristic. Yet when Bush comes under fire for his Harriet Miers nomination, or the port controversy, or immigration, that somehow proves Greenwald’s right, in some odd way that mere mortals such as myself can’t fathom.

Greenwald stated that, under the rules of the Bush Cult, to be called a conservative, one must support Bush, unwaveringly, and to do otherwise is to be called a liberal. His latest example is William F. Buckley, who called Iraq a lost cause just yesterday. Glenn examines the (admittedly, in some cases, over-the-top) reaction to Howard Dean’s statement that we were losing the war and is just sure that Buckley’s comments will result in a similar massive denunciation:

This grotesque exploitation for domestic political gain of patriotism, loyalty and bravery is the single most frequently used rhetorical tactic of Bush followers over the last five years. During this same time, we have been hearing all sorts of complaints about the “Angry Left.” Similarly, that the “lefty blogosphere” is composed of enraged, epithet-spewing cretins has become the newly unveiled conventional wisdom among the status-threatened establishment media. And yet, it has become so common as to be routine for Bush followers to stridently accuse their domestic political opponents of being cowards, subversives and traitors, and, increasingly, to call for their imprisonment and/or execution.

(Glenn, in an effort to be helpful, here’s a prominent example of Angry Left, a woman you have quite conspiciously allied yourself with – and yes, enraged, epithet-spewing cretin seems to fit the bill quite nicely, doesn’t it? And please provide examples of Bush followers calling for the execution of their domestic political opponents – that should make for enlightening reading).

Of course, one obvious difference between Dean and Buckley is that Dean is the head of the Democratic Party, while Buckley is in the magazine business, but let’s leave that and let Greenwald continue:

This is a real question: by the standards which have become commonplace among Bush followers, isn’t Bill Buckley clearly a traitor? We are (of course) in the middle of a war. That war (in Iraq) is the central front in another war we’re fighting (the War on Terror, a/k/a the War of Civilizations, World War III, World War IV, the Long War). To surrender in Iraq is — to use the White House’s formulation — to “surrender to the terrorists.” Bill Buckley is clearly on the other side – the side of terrorists. And what a coward he is.

Worse, there are American troops in harm’s way and here is Bill Buckley declaring that Bush has lost the war and should acknowledge America’s defeat. Doesn’t Buckley owe the troops an apology? He should be spat on by the families of those troops.

This really is the lowly point to which Bush followers have dragged this country. To oppose the American war in Iraq — a war that is turning out to be the greatest and most disastrous strategic mistake this country has ever made – has long been sufficient for one to be branded a coward and a subversive. To question the President’s policies on terrorism has resulted in even more severe accusations.

Bill Buckley has now unmasked himself as a cowardly, anti-American ally of Al Qaeda. He wants to wave the white flag to terrorists, and has sabatoged the Commander-in-Chief’s war effort by declaring it a failure. Shouldn’t we bring criminal charges against Buckley, along with demands that he be hanged? On what ground can any of the Bush followers who have long equated opposition to the war with subversion and treason — and who branded Howard Dean a traitor for a statement identical to the one Buckley made — oppose those efforts?

The great patriot and American hero Ben Shapiro can prepare Buckley’s noose while that brave American warrior Michael Reagan places the hood over his head and those lovers of American values Michelle Malkin and John Hinderaker lead the throngs as they yell “traitor” and “coward” at Buckley while his neck snaps. That’s the horrendous image which has come to represent the sad, almost-psychotic state of political dialogue which Bush followers have imposed on our country. And that’s just one of the comparatively small harms which the Bush movement has inflicted on America which is going to take quite some time to repair.

Well, let’s see how the real world matches Greenwald’s fantasyland.

Captain Ed:

One hesitates to get into an argument with the icon of conservative philosophy, but in this case, Buckley isn’t reversing course; he’s expounding an argument that conservatives (paleoconservatives, if you will) have always made in terms of foreign engagement. His argument appears sound on a superficial level because it only addresses the actions of the moment. The insurgents won an important but momentary victory when they successfully collapsed the shrine of Askariya, but what Buckley wants to do is to grant them the war by default.

Buckley also erects somewhat of a strawman in this passage, one that exposes the real intent of his essay:

It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others’ throats.

And here we have the essential Buckley, revealed. The traditional conservative position reached its most potent expression in the policies of Brent Scowcroft, the last bastion of realpolitik in government. Conservatives for decades fought against foreign entanglements and the liberation of people from tyranny for its own sake, only espousing military intervention when clear and short-term American economic or strategic interests came under threat. Buckley and Scowcroft would never have suggested that the US depose Saddam Hussein, mostly because they would not have thought that the oppression and genocide of Iraqis was worth the expense and headache of liberation.

Jeff Goldstein:

This is, it seems to me, a well-articulated bit of traditional conservative disillusionment with an ongoing affair…

And, ummm, Decision ‘08:

…[L]et’s see what next week brings in terms of movement to repair the damage, among the Iraqis themselves, before falling prey to grand pronouncements of victory or defeat…

Let me just apologize to my readers here for exposing you to that hate-filled, epithet-spewing angry mob of conservatives turning on the traitor Buckley, as Glenn assured us we would.

The closest thing to a denunciation of Buckley I can find is this rather mild rebuke from Gina Cobb:

Buckley’s claim that America has failed in Iraq is too much based on dramatic events of this past week that have yet to fully unfold. I have to conclude that Buckley has fallen prey to defeatism.

Oddly, Glenn seizes on Captain Ed’s piece to claim victory:

That’s what will happen when the Father of the political ideology to which they have deceitfully proclaimed allegiance publicly proclaims the crown jewel of the Bush movement to be an abject failure. “It doesn’t matter that Buckley says that, because we’re not conservatives; we’re Bushites.” Exactly.

Wait – I thought the only way to be a conservative was to praise Bush, and everyone else was a liberal…let’s go back to the tapes, shall we?

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. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more “liberal” one is. Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

So, it would seem that Captain Ed should have called Buckley a ‘liberal’ – but instead, according to Glenn, he called him a conservative! And yet the theory is proved…

Now, a small-minded little blogger like me might think this is because Glenn’s theory was ridiculous to begin with, with its view of one monolithic ‘conservative’ viewpoint (ever hear of neo-conservatism, Glenn? It’s been discussed a time or two over the last few years) and cultlike adoration of Bush. However, I know that can’t be the case, so I can only marvel at a theory that is so elastic that it covers every possible circumstance.

Physicists have long searched for the Grand Unified Theory, the set of rules that would explain all physical behavior in the universe in a seamless framework. They need search no more – with the Theory of the Bush Cult, Greenwald has succeeded where they so often failed..