By Allen J Duffis
Published: January 18, 2006

     Whenever one debates the ‘hardcore’ Conservative Christian Right over the rapidly decreasing value of George W. Bush as leader of the free world, there inevitably comes the forced comparison to former President Bill Clinton; which usually starts with the subjective query… “Well what about Bill Clinton who did…?” 

     Therefore, one is moved to question why?  Why do these people employ a former presidential figure they openly despise, as a comparative benchmark for their hero, George Bush?  The answer is a simple one.

     The Middle Class as an economic group, suffered tremendously under a brutal recession during the Bush senior presidency.  And most of that group felt that his administration was not sympathetic to their needs and resultant losses.

     With all of his supposed human weaknesses of the flesh, overall and on average, a healthy portion of the middle class viewed Clinton’s tenure in office as a relatively successful one. Most were comfortable under his presidency; and tended to view his eight-year occupation of the office as a second coming of “Camelot”. 

     It was the general consensus among most that they were generally better off under his administration than under the former Bush senior’s presidency. 

     Then on September 11, 2001, international terrorists struck at the very heart of America.  It was the first time we, as a country, had ever been attacked on the home front.   As a nation, our patina of self-assured domestic invulnerability from alien threat was shattered for all time.

     Fear and paranoia lay waste to the normally secure American psyche, and many in our society looked for a hero to take revenge and to keep them safe.   George W. Bush just happened to be there at the time, megaphone in hand.  And in the wake of his actions the country split right down the middle politically, as so it remains today. It’s as simple as that.

     Therefore to understand the social instability brought on by this move toward ‘hero worship’ now common to so many of the American electorate, it becomes necessary to compare the goings on in both the Clinton and present Bush presidencies: starting of course with the practice of lying.

     Without doubt, Bill Clinton lied about engaging in extramarital sex with a young, impressionable White House aide.  She was, however, of age, female and appeared not only willing but, by her own admission, encouraged the act as well. 

     The Ultra Conservative Christian Right make much ado about the fact that, when questioned about this affair, Bill Clinton lied under oath.  But I say so what?  He shouldn’t have been asked in the first place, since what he lied about was a private affair; one that in no way endangered or compromised the country, and was no one else’s business in the first place.

     Ulysses Grant, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy did far more in this area than he ever managed to achieve, and there was no public clamor or uproar (other than a knowing wink) when the rumors became public. 

    No one died because of Clinton’s scandalous behavior, or by similar moral infractions committed by previous occupants of the Oval Office.  In point of fact, the rest of the world thought we were making too much ado about nothing.

     When President Clinton made his first appearance at the United Nations, after enduring the public ordeal of a televised apology to the nation, the organization’s representatives (men and women alike) gave him a standing two-minute ovation.

     Meanwhile, the country tallied up a major expenditure of taxpayer dollars (well over 50 million), the end result of a furtive attempt by the extreme Right of the Republican Party to facilitate the Clinton’s fall from grace in the eyes of the American people.  Ultimately, the combined Whitewater Investigation and Impeachment effort failed.

     Poll after poll taken has indicated that, were he able to run for the presidency again, Bill Clinton would be overwhelmingly reelected.

     Whether you liked him or not, he left the country in excellent economic shape; no matter what the ‘Political Animals’ and ultra conservative pundits try to insinuate.  The facts cannot be denied through the fallacious twisting of the record.  George W. Bush on the other hand is another matter. 

     The Bill Clinton comparison to that of George W. Bush as regards supporters is, on the other hand, another matter entirely.  Clinton’s supporters and admirers are simply that.  They know he is flawed as an individual and balance his errors, in both office and life, against their own as fellow human beings.    

     The Bush supporters on the other hand exceed simple adulation for his persona. They have become willing disciples in a religion of “Bushism.” He admits to no errors in judgment, regardless of the outcome, and assumes the, god like, biblical aura of ‘infallibility.’ And they accept his proclamations without question. In other words, they ‘worship’ him.

     Bush has taken us into a war that, to date, has produced an American death toll exceeding 2000, and rapidly approaching the 3000 mark.  That toll does not take into account the almost 17,000 wounded, or even come close to addressing the estimated 160,000 Iraqi deaths that were the result of his actions.

     Before his first run for office, Bush steadfastly promised that, unlike Clinton, he would never engage in ‘nation building.’ 

     Now, with an almost 250 billion dollar expenditure in Iraq, he no longer mentions that pledge.  Instead, he refers to the effort as the ‘War on Terror’: even though not one of the 19 terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 came from Iraq, nor was their effort planned and directed from there.

     Despite that hard fact, one has only to read his March 18, 2003 letter to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate (On the web: Presidential letter ), spelling out his intention to include in the congressional mandate for an attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan, a planned invasion of Iraq.  It will be immediately noted in section (2), specific justification by reference has been made to the 9-11 attack:

“…to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorists organizations, those nations, organizations or persons who planned , authorized committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

     It must also be mentioned that the Bush administration has squandered the 230 billion surplus left by the Clinton administration, and in its place has indebted us to the tune of trillions of dollars and rising.

      So in light of these facts, what many other ‘Thinking Americans’ find unnerving, is the growing number of their fellow Americans who are willing to buy into the “Philosophy of Bush”, and to believe just about any Urban Myth that crops up that places opponents of their political choice in a bad light. 

    They refuse to understand that George Bush is simply President of the United States, and not the United States itself.  They tend to violently regard those fellow countrymen and women who challenge the President’s actions and leadership, as enemies of America.

     This citizen fellowship of “Hard Partisanship” have now become engaged in the most dangerous kind of societal hero worship; one that attempts to stifle dissent – the bedrock of our Constitution.  Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr refers to the deadly syndrome as a “Cult of Personality.” 

     In place of realistic office holder evaluations, they allow themselves to be emotionally blindsided by the specter of – ‘popular leadership.’

     To be perfectly fair, however, George Bush is not the first instance of this syndrome in our nation’s history.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt could easily qualify as the first (who like Bush, also tried to pack the Supreme Court to his favor), John F. Kennedy as the second and Ronald Regan as the third.

     It is important to remember that at the cost of great human sacrifice, history has taught us a hard lesson about the inherent danger of this double-edged sword; it can cut both ways.  This is ‘exactly’ how Adolph Hitler came to power.

     ‘Personality Cult’ driven citizens are willing to throw a defensive shield around their ‘hero of the moment.’ And they are often willing to do so in deference to the commission of clear constitutional violations and impeachable crimes by that leader; breeches of Constitutional law which other holders of the office, like Bill Clinton, would have been drawn and quartered for.  This growing trend is unsettling and particularly disturbing.

     What cannot be denied are the numerous statements by President Bush and members of his cabinet, all on record, which reveal a strategic lack of understanding of domestic security needs.  But in which vacuum the development of a well-defined cult of denial of responsibility, and outright lying is practiced and honed regularly:

“Who would have expected …to hijack an airliner and fly it into a building as a guided missile?” – National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, March 19, 2002.

     Dr. Rice in a CBS “60 Minutes” interview, with great effort, danced around the question of why the Bush administration and her office, not follow up on the massive amount of intelligence data left by the outgoing Clinton administration that might have offered warning of 9-11? (Related:CBS website- Interview on 60 Minutes)

“Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
President Bush

“Iraq has been trying to import Uranium (Yellowcake) from Niger.”
President Bush  

“My belief is, in fact, we will be greeted as liberators.”
Vice President Cheney on “Meet the Press” speaking of invasion of Iraq – March 14, 2003

“Saddam Hussein has ties to al Qaeda and was involved in 9-11.”
Vice President Cheney on “Meet the Press” September 14, 2003

“The reason I keep insisting there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda.”
Bush to reporters after a Cabinet meeting June 17, 2004  

“I have been assured by both Karl Rove and Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby that neither man was involved in the [Valerie Plame Affair] security leak.”
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan - October 7, 2003

“I don’t think anybody anticipated the breech of the levees.”
Bush on “Good Morning America” 6 days after repeated warnings from experts about the scope of damage expected from Hurricane Katrina. Sept 1, 2005

“Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job!”
Bush to FEMA Director Michael Brown: in praise of his incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina. Sept. 6, 2005

    The list goes on and on.

     On an honest day, I seriously doubt that any morally bound thinking person, throwing aside political partisanship and simply culling through the records, could possibly find so many conflicting gaffs of outright lying and incompetency from the Clinton years.  Unless that is, one chose to invent them for reasons of partisanship.

      One of the best and most chilling works of fiction by the writer, Steven King, is his 1975 work, “Salem’s Lot.”  In this novel, a few people in this New England town come to realize that they are rapidly becoming a minority, as all of the other residents are slowly turning into vampires.

     Many ‘Thinking Americans’ are beginning to feel the same way about a major portion of our voting population.  They are slowly becoming slaves to this “Cult of Personality” or, more descriptively, Political Zombies.

     Given the choice, I’d rather deal with vampires. To my way of thinking, giving a little of one’s life’s blood to a vampire, is preferable to giving any part of one’s mind or free will to a politician.  Any politician!