Mad Social Scientist

I linked to Andrew Sullivan's furious summary of Zell Miller's speech earlier. Here is his reaction to Bush's speech. I often disagree with Andrew Sullivan, and am sometimes upset by what I've seen in his blog, but I have to say it is nice to see a right-wing opinion leader really come clean with their view of Bush and the direction he has chosen (and we know a lot of people are seriously disappointed with Bush). Sullivan says he's sick of Bush's borrow-and-spend policies and his gay-bashing. But what makes me most happy is that Sullivan asserts his own (small "c") conservatism at the same time: the message is, "I'm a fiscal conservative who believes in protecting personal freedom; Bush supports neither goal, and so I can't support him as a candidate, even though I like the guy".

This is the sort of intellectual honesty so sorely missing from our national discourse, and it's missing mostly (though not entirely) on the right hand side. I think what burns up "left-wing intellectuals" the most about Bush is not that we disagree with his policies (though we do, intensely), but that we despise how he has devalued truth and honesty in public discourse. It's as if the Bush people believe democracy can remain healthy even when everyone lies; that there is some magic that will preserve our system against any abuse they heap on it. But when you can get away with lying about what has happened, what you will do, what you have done, what your opponent has said and done, etc., democracy has lost a lot. We need a president who would be embarassed to abuse his power for personal preservation or gain, not one who perpetually tests the edge of what he can get away with.

I also like Sullivan's comparison of Bush and Bismarck, but that's another story.