For the first two years of Bush's presidency, his strength was that he was willing to advocate extreme policies, do what wasn't customary. If a tax cut request would have reasonably been in the range of 200-400 billion dollars depending on the party, he'd ask for a trillion. He changed the terms of the debate through extremism, and people didn't know how to oppose it because they were stunned.
Kissinger wrote of revolutionary powers and those overtaken by them:
"Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework."Now, there's a difference between a revolutionary and a bully. A revolutionary has ideas that actually can take virally take hold in a population. A bully is merely unsophisticated and forceful. Still powerful, but ultimately alone. Bush's causes are great for his base, but there isn't much chance of his platforms being supported by those that might have opposed him at first. They've already abdicated this; every time they market a Clear Skies or Healthy Forest act, they are choosing not to market what they actually advocate. I'd worry if it were titled the Trees Become Houses act and had wide support. No, Bush isn't a revolutionary. Their only hope is to sneak their objectives through, not inspire people to their cause. Bullies aren't leaders.
People were a bit lazy and fat and happy in 1999. Yes, the dotcom crash was a bit scary, but people were still coasting on the success of the decade. They were not in the mode to accept the possibility that a bully would show up. This is part of what opened up the space for it. Bullies need room to sneak.
And this is one of the weaknesses of a bully. They need to sneak, but eventually what they are doing will become obvious. People realize what is happening. Sometimes they realize too late to stop something bad from happening, but there is always a realization. A bully's success comes from obfuscation, distraction, wheedling, and threats.
But it's also a clue of how to oppose a bully.
I was bullied in school. Enough to be affected by it, enough to recognize one when I see one. Bush has Ashcroft. He advocates making the Patriot Act permanent. He makes up insulting nicknames for people he works with. He uses the language of domination and intimidation. He's definitely a bully. One of the hardest things for a child to learn is how to oppose a bully. I was often told to just ignore it, but that only helps one to cope with or accept it, not oppose it. The other obvious option was to stand up to them directly. People think that's honorable, but the thing about bullies is that they are small, stupid, and subhuman. They are not honorable. Plus, due to practice, they are probably better at violence than you are.
It's difficult to know how to stand up to a bully, but it's possible. Bullies are a mixture of threats, cowardliness, subterfuge, and idiocy. One rule in dealing with a bully is to never, ever, ever accept their terms. You can expose them sometimes. You can challenge them sometimes and demonstrate to others how they run. You can stand up to some of the threats and demonstrate their emptiness. And sometimes you can flat-out ridicule them. But the number one thing to remember is that bullies get their power by convincing others not to express theirs. In order to oppose a bully, it's not so much about opposing them on their terms, as it is championing yourself on yours.
Excellent post! You hit the nail on the head. Would definitely include this one in your compilation of posts for publication.
Posted by: Kath at May 9, 2004 07:06 AM