At a recent news conference in London a reporter asked President Bush, “Why do they hate you, Mr. President? Why do they hate you in such numbers?” It’s a rather embarrassing question to ask anyone, never mind the leader of the free world, and Bush in his reply shed no new light on this peculiar political phenomenon. Every president has his detractors, of course. If he did not there would be reason to wonder whether he was doing his job. But Bush hatred does seem to be sui generis.
Bill Clinton was surely disliked by many conservatives, but even taking into consideration his impeachment, their dislike for him was, in certain respects, restrained. No anti-Clinton political movement or candidate ever emerged, only Dole’s ironic detachment of the 1996 election. Hillary Clinton is certainly despised by the Right for her far-left sensibilities, but that’s largely not the case with her husband, whose policies were relatively moderate and whose rhetoric was nearly always middle of the road. It is true that Ronald Reagan was greatly disliked by the Left, even hated. But it was an antipathy dripping with condescension, and condescension does not easily work itself into the white-hot lather of a Howard Dean–only the patronizing sneer of a Walter Mondale.
So what is it about George W. Bush that drives the Left utterly mad? Liberals have given many justifications for their righteous anger: He “stole” the 2000 election; he’s too Texan, too Christian, just too dumb; he struts and talks like a yokel. Others complain bitterly of his “far-right” policies: His support for a ban on partial-birth abortion, his opposition to human cloning and gay marriage, and his tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. And, of course, there’s the war in Iraq–always the war in Iraq.
These explanations no doubt have something to do with why the Left despises Bush. But there is more to their hatred than is generally understood–something more fundamental is at work. Almost all modern liberal thought begins with the bedrock assumption that humans are basically good. Within this moral horizon something such as terrorism cannot really exist, except as a manifestation of injustice, or unfairness, or lack of decent social services. Whether knowingly or not Bush has directly challenged this core liberal belief–and for this he is not easily forgiven.
The president has in fact acknowledged liberals’ desire “to put that day [of September 11] behind us, as if waking from a dark dream.” But if “the hope that danger has passed is comforting,” it is also, Bush has admonished, “false.” September 11 was no dream; it was, in his view, a portent of what may come. And so Bush has repeatedly urged his audiences to see that “the evil is in plain sight,” and that the democracies must learn to “face these threats with open eyes.”
But what should be clear and obvious is made obscure by liberal ideology. If we are to face the evil in plain sight, we must first properly fit words to facts. Bush calls the terrorists “killers” and “evildoers,” and speaks of an “axis of evil.” He affirms the need for the “violent restraint of violent men,” and argues that military strength is necessary to keep at bay “a chaotic world ruled by force.” He describes life under Hussein’s rule in Iraq as a “Baathist hell.” We live, the president warns, in “a time of danger.”
These are not mere words to Bush, but have given shape to his singular foreign policy. The president went to war in Iraq rather than trust the good faith of Hussein or the diligence of U.N. arms inspectors; he refuses to recognize Arafat as a legitimate leader of the Palestinian people; he has made clear that a lasting peace can come to the Middle East only through democratic reform. The very touchstone of his thinking is the moral and political distinction between democracy and tyranny.
Such analysis does not go down well with liberals. The utopian Left believes that the wolf can be made to dwell with the lamb. Their preferred method of dealing with wolfish dictators is to “dialogue” with them. Surely, they say, dictators want (well, more or less,) what we want: peace and good will towards all men. It is this sort of blindness that allowed Arafat to win the Nobel Peace prize. It is this sort of wishful thinking that led liberals to believe that Hussein could be contained by U.N. resolutions alone. The Left almost as a matter of ideology shuns all such unpleasant realities. The Clinton administration, after all, proposed calling rogue states–nations who starve and torture their own citizens and threaten their neighbors–”states of concern.” Bush simply calls them “evil.”
The Left vilifies Bush because he insists on calling a spade a spade, and in so doing threatens to bring down their entire intellectual edifice. Even after the horrors of the 20th century, the Left has yet to recover from its Rousseau-induced hangover. Liberals still insist on seeing human nature as basically good. Nothing is more offensive to such a mentality, not Hussein’s torture chambers, not al Qaeda’s wanton killing of innocent life, than one who dares to speak so plainly of “evildoers.”
<span class="bioline"–Adam Wolfson is editor of The Public Interest.