May 31, 2004
Bully Bush
E.J. Dionne writes about Bush and the Iraq war buildup in hindsight.Instead of reaching out to doubters, Bush derided them. On the campaign trail in September 2002, he characterized Democratic members of Congress who wanted a strong mandate from the United Nations -- exactly what the administration is seeking now -- as evading responsibility. "It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States," he said, "you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States."There's the bully factor again. It's obvious he's deliberately overlooking something. It's hard to concisely phrase it, partially because you know you shouldn't have to. But that's the point - he knows it, and is just rubbing your face in it.
Because honestly, if he were to say that to your face, and were in a position of power above you, how could you respond?
"I am trying to make a decision on what's best for the United States!" Defensive. Powerless.
"Well, that is the question, isn't it? What's best for the United States?" Indecisive. Philosophical in a time of urgency.
"What??! How dare you! You, you - ! ^#%#@#!" Unprofessional. Weak. Amusing.
Remember how bullies maintain power. It's not by being powerful themselves, it is by convincing others to deny their own power. The power Bush had here was that everyone else was convinced that they should fall in line and support him. It wasn't that Bush was a mastermind, it was that everyone else folded. This power is something that should have been opposed, and wasn't. Imagine this response:
"This man who calls himself a president, who has the most honorable position in our government, is cheapening the office by using third-rate bullying tactics. His behavior is beneath his charge. His actions do not meet the standards of his duties. If his instructions are for the government to subvert its own processes, then he clearly does not have American interests at heart. We in the Senate have an honorable and sacred duty, and it will not be subverted by such empty language and stunted vision."
The tone is different because, unlike the others, it does not accept any part of the message it is reacting to. The other responses, even while they are in opposition, are accepting the validity of Bush's power. They've accepted a premise that has made them weak, and are struggling against their own denials. The latter response isn't encumbered in that manner.
Funny you should mention it. My reaction (qualify it how you will) to that particular remark of the Shrub’s was, “You’re right—vote for Al Gore.”
The truth is these bullying behaviors are endemic of the far right in this country. When they can’t take the initiative, they steal it. It’s inherently divisive, but they don’t really care. If anything, that’s to their advantage. (I think that’s why Randi Rhodes comes off the way she does. For all her fire and thunder, she’s fighting a defensive war being shaped by the right. And being ex-military and from the Bronx doesn’t help.) It doesn’t give people time to think and the far right live in fear of free, willful thought.
As far as talking to someone in a position of power, I can’t agree with the underlying premise there. George W has more money and guns on his side, but we’re his boss. And at the risk of being petty, I just can’t be intimidated by a grown man whose favorite book is “The Hungry Little Caterpillar,” fer crissakes.
One more thing: You’re probably already aware of this, but your comments on countering bullying tactics reminded me of Dr Suzette Haden Elgin’s work in verbal self-defense. Have a look: http://www.howstuffworks.com/vsd.htm
Posted by: Joe Medina at May 31, 2004 09:35 PM