Bush vs. the Environment

George Bush is to statesmanship what Britney Spears is to Western music. To be fair, Bush hasn’t shaved his head, checked in to rehab, and been sited in public without undergarments. Nevertheless, it would be hard to think of a more empty-headed and obtuse president than the one we have now.

The story of how George W. Bush managed to make it to the Oval Office, of course, has turned from farce to tragedy. A majority of Americans voted for Al Gore, but legal jujitsu was the deciding factor, not the voters. It would not be the first time Alice in Wonderland reasoning would be employed to hoodwink the public.

Gore, of course, has proven prescient in his critique of the Bush Administration. He argued against the invasion on the grounds that post-war Iraq would be rife with sectarian rivalries that would unleash dangers far greater than the threats posed by Saddam. And Gore was also one of the only major political figures to steadfastly critique the administration’s dubious legal argument regarding warrantless wiretaps and coercive interrogation methods.

Gore, as it happens, has also been decades ahead of America’s politicians when it comes to the perils of global warming. Fifteen years ago, Gore was ridiculed as “Ozone Man” by Bush’s father; today denying global warming puts you in the same company as the flat-earth crowd, those waiting for the Rapture, and those who believe (like Dick Cheney) that we’re making fantastic progress in Iraq.

With Iraq unraveling Bush has taken the line that it will be thirty years or more before his decision is vindicated. It is no small irony, however, that Gore’s visionary stance on global warming, staked out some three decades ago, is being vindicated in the present. Bush has scolded war critics; blithely asserting that hindsight is not wisdom. But lack of foresight is not wisdom either, and apologist for the Bush Administration should be at pains to explain how it is that Bush’s record as a prognosticator is even less reliable than the predictions of Saddam’s former Information Minister, Baghdad Bob.

So, Gore wins the popular vote, an Academy Award, and maybe even a Nobel Prize. Bush loses the popular vote, mismanages two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), and seems destined to displace Andrew Johnson as America’s worst president. Why in the world would America send Al Gore to Hollywood while sending George Bush to Washington? The answer to that question rests with the oracles on the Supreme Court.

There’s a cosmic irony in all this: Gore goes to tinsel town and creates a genuinely edifying motion picture, while Bush goes to Washington and hypnotizes the public with chimeras and sleight of hand (non-existent WMD and spurious connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam). They say we get the public figures we deserve. Speaking for the majority that voted for Gore in 2000, I don’t think that’s always true. But it doesn’t say a lot about us that buffoons like Bush and Brittany Spears are the one’s making the news these days.

Sphere: Related Content