Well, better late than never, I suppose. I mean, some of us figured out several years ago that George W. Bush is "a leader so clearly unfit to lead" and that "the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality." According to Time Magazine's Joe Klein, writing about "the epic collapse of the Bush Administration:"
The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).
Well, no shit Sherlock. And you can add a few more to that list too: Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, Hurricane Katrina, huge tax cuts for rich people, huge deficits, the North Korean nuclear cluster****, the Arab-Israeli "peace process" (or lack thereof under Bush), the axis of idiocy approach to foreign policy, environmental policy (or lack thereof under Bush, once again), utter disregard for treaties and allies, recess appointments and other end runs around Congress, etc., etc.
If none of these qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors," well that doesn't change the fact that, as Klein writes, this Administration is clearly "one of the worst in American history...a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure." The question is, why have the American people put up with this "travesty" as long as they have? And why have they taken so long to realize that this isn't an aberration, that right-wing ideology is fundamentally flawed, and that those who have utter contempt for government shouldn't be the ones running it?
By the way, I am certainly not arguing that the Democrats are perfect - far from it. I am merely arguing that today's Republican Party, dominated by a mixture of fundamentalist religious conservatives on social policy, trickle down supply siders on economic policy, and militaristic neoconservatives on foreign policy, is an outright disaster and utterly unfit to govern. What ever happened to the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford...hell, even George HW Bush? Unfortunately, it's long gone, replaced by the crazed, inbred progeny of Lee Atwater, Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, Jerry Falwell, and Grover Norquist.
The end result of this degeneration: a country that is poorer, more divided, more militaristic, less civil, less free, less loved around the world, less secure, and with less moral power than ever before. Heckuva job, Bush-Cheney. Heckuva job.
Why did it take Joe Klein (and the rest of the MSM) so long? Molly nailed it long ago, bless her soul.
My experience with the "why"....it ranges anywhere from ignorance (no time or inclination to know what's going on) to mean-spirited "well those that don't have what I have should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
I think the final Bush lovers might rebel if there was some type of sacrifice for this hideous war we are in.... a raise in their taxes or, heaven forbid, a reinstatement of the draft, for example.
But Dems should make the best effort they can to discuss the reasons why government is the best solution for so many of our problems.
First of all, the sea change into Bushism did not begin with Dubya, it began with Reagan, after the defeat of Goldwater, so it is not a recent development. The disgruntled and angry business capitalists who feared and hated FDR made a deliberate, conscious effort to propagate their philosophy, claiming it was the "constitutional" philosophy of the Founding Fathers, an approach called by Alfred Toynbee in his Study of History "putting new wine in old bottles."
Using the vast resources of the conservative business class they gradually took over the media, putting them in a position to control what the public learned about current events, and thus eventually were able to shape public opinion. Through a Machiavellian alliance with certain religious evangelicals (to their mutual benefit, or so they thought) they politicized morality, creating a pool of true believers who could be relied upon for votes and money.
Any political analyst has to appreciate the remarkable achievement of the transformation of American politics by these neo-conservatives. They seem to have tapped into strong undercurrents in the American psyche, which include not only nativism, fear of the changes in the modern world avalanching down on them, and hunger for the comfort of authoritarian leadership in a tough world, but a pushback against the agents of change like science, uppity women (the latent misogyny of neo-republicanism is virulent), and foreigners who have suddenly turned into serious rivals and competitors not just safely overseas but right here "at home."
The neo-conservatives (who are NOT conservative, but radical reactionaries) would never have been so successful if so many voters had not resonated to their message. There are other, more positive and liberal undercurrents in America, which have been submerged by the tsunami of the neo-conservative crafting of public relations, and it is these positive currents which the Democrats must tap into and express if they are to defeat the Bush-style republicans.