Not a day goes by in the hopeychangey Obama Administration that we don't see some new story about what a horrible president Bush was--the 'worst in history'--and that is really some pronouncement coming as it does from the ethically and morally challenged Harry Reid.
Even the supposedly supremely sanctified and post-partisan (LOL!!) Obama Administration regularly has been using the previous President as all-purpose scapegoat:
Sec. Clinton went abroad this week and immediately, and yes, gratuitously, blamed Bush. On her initial tour abroad, Sec. Clinton announced that she would follow an approach that “values what others have to say”: “Too often in the recent past, our government has acted reflexively before considering available facts and evidence or hearing the perspectives of others.” And then she promised a policy “neither impulsive nor ideological.”
Yet can’t Team Obama get a life? We are now into month two; and will it always be “Bush did it?” (I don’t recall Bush circa 2001 in a constant anti-Clinton mode)
But don't expect Team Obama to 'get a life'. This administration is made up of nothingness (or "0" on its own); it is simply the exact opposite, or the "flip side" of Bush Derangement:
A strange thing, this Obama worship (cf. the New York Times op-ed on Sunday where the columnist imagined having sexual relations with Obama) and Bush hatred (cf. the Will Farrell Broadway show trashing Bush, and showing images of his purported penis). They are flipside manifestations of the same sickness that has taken hold of a large subset of the population. Millions seems to think by demonizing A and worshipping B, then once intractable problems (that transcend both A’s faults and B’s merits) suddenly, magically will disappear. But the apocalyptic style is quite dangerous, and the 20th century should have told us that answers are not found through fixating evil on “them” and seeking a “He” to address it. In the meantime, civility is prized, and one should criticize Obama in a spirit and tone that are the exact opposites of the way in which Bush was demonized.
Since the beginning of the Bush Presidency (and needless to say that timeframe hardly provides any historical perspective, only the usual leftist perspective) , we have been innundated with constant reports and polls about how he is the worst President in history and that history will not be kind to him.
Let me be very frank here. Who the f**k cares about any poll claiming that the generic "American public" thinks that history won't be kind to him? Why the hell would any reputable newspaper print that sort of crap in the first place? Forgive my language, but this kind of agenda-driven nonsense really infuriates me; and I suspect it is one of the reasons why the MSM is no longer considered very "reputable".
There are two reasons we are being constantly subjected to this kind of propaganda. The first is that historical revisionism is not something that is confined to psychotic regimes in the Middle East who convene "scientific" conferences to "prove" that the Holocaust did not even happen (I'll bet a Gallup poll in Iran, or anywhere in the muslim world for that matter, would have even more than 54% of the population agree that it didn't. Are we supposed to believe that such a poll has anything to do with reality?).
The second reason is that in our lovely postmodern world, where reality and truth are only relative and anybody's "reality" is as good as anybody else's; is is just a matter of a poll or two, constructed along ideological lines to fit a particular template; that can somehow determine today, what history will say many tomorrows from now. With enough repetition and passion, "history" can be set in stone in the temporal present. Any postmodern demagogue worth his Marxist salt can do it!
I mean, why bother to wait for time to pass when you have a socialist/Marxist utopia to build today?
You've got to ask yourselves what the lunatic political left even know about history--except that it is something to be constantly revised to dovetail with their ideological spin du jour. Take this particularly assinine bit of pseudo-intellectual pablum resentfully spat out about the time that Ronald Reagan died:
In hindsight, it's easy to see that Reagan's election was the end of many things - the end of the '70s, and the mood of experimentation that went with it (the '70s were when the '60s went mainstream); the end of the "Vietnam syndrome," and the temporary popular revulsion against imperial military adventures; the end of the political alignment that emerged from the New Deal, the end of the New Left and its hopeless ambitions - the end, really, of the post-World War II era....
But I'll leave the pluses and minuses of Reaganomics for the historians. At this late date, it's hardly worth arguing about. Reagan's foreign policies, on the other hand, still make my blood boil, even after all these years. His decision to challenge the Soviets on every front - which, given the senility and paranoia of the Breshnev-era Soviet leadership, could easily have led to war - is, of course, relentlessly promoted by the conservative propaganda machine as the masterstroke that ended the Cold War. In reality, it was the end of the Cold War (made possible by Mikhail Gorbachov's rise to power) that headed off the disaster that Reagan's recklessness might otherwise have triggered.
Read it all to get the full flavor of spite and bitter resentment the author describes that the mere election of Ronald Reagan fomented in his aching breast. He will "leave it to history" even as he revises and rewrites what history has already seen. Clearly, the writer understood then--as the pathological liars of the left understand now--that their day is passing into twilight. That is why polls are reverently worshipped and so essential for them to get out their message. They are incapable of rational argument to support their ideas (or lack thereof), so are desperately trying to prove that their ideology is at least more popular.
For them, popularity will always trump truth and reality. They will never acknowledge, let alone take responsibility for the millions that their ideology killed in the last century and the unbelievable depths of human misery their ideas wrought. They will only continue their con, protected by the fog of postmodernism.
Today's political left might have a few transient moments of glory left in them, but the perfidy and nihilism that is destroying civilization and which is relentlessly promoted by their mindless minions through the irrational postmodern rhetoric we've come to expect from the MSM has now been fully exposed.
The left deeply fears neoconservatism and the economic and political freedom that it supports, and will stop at nothing to discredit its ideas. But they cannot do it using reason, reality, and truth; so these impediments they must abandon.
Neoconservatism is far from perfect. After all, neocons are ordinary human beings --as opposed to Obamacons who are perfect beings of pure (and vague) "hope and change" postmodernism. As I noted in "What the World Needs Now":
The problem is countering the source of this pervasive nihilism, promulgated and promoted by the West's own intellectual elites under the pseudonym of postmodernism.Indeed, the left said pretty much the same thing even before Ronald Reagan got elected in 1979. It was wishful thinking then, and it is wishful thinking now.
And the only intellectual remedy brought forth in the last five decades to nullify postmodern philosophy and rhetoric is neoconservatism.
If you listen at all to the MSM, you might begin to think that neoconservativesm is either in dissaray, dead and abandoned by all its former adherents.
Today's left is a nothing more than the hallow shell of what was once known as "liberalism"; and it is held together by the empty and meaningless rhetoric of postmodern intellectual nonsense, otherwise known as political correctness and multiculturalism (or, cultural relativity).
Neoconservatism as an intellectual theory actually arose from the observation in the 1960's that classical liberalism had been hijacked by the left and its essence literally reconstructed to suit the needs of socialists and communists who were beginning to realize that the jig was up for them.
All over the world it was becoming apparent that political and social collectivism was an abject failure. Where implemented, such policies led to intractable poverty and misery economically; and unbelievable oppression and the crushing of the human spirt politically and morally.
I have discussed elsewhere how the recent revival of socialism and its collectivist/totalitarian agenda in the late 20th and early 21st century was made possible by the adoption of postmodern epistemology, rhetoric and politics by western intellectual elites....
The rise of neoconservatism represents the only modern intellectual counter and the only known antidote to the infection of postmodernism and its resultant toxic effects on philosophy, rehtoric, and politics.
In order to succeed in undoing and undermining the clear and unambiguous evidence of socialism's and communism's utter human toxicity, the totalitarians of the political left had to undermine nothing less than reality, reason, and truth. Furthermore, they had to deconstruct and invalidate human consciousness, making sure that the everyone understood that the only apparatus available to humans for perceiving reality--the mind--was completely unreliable, and that the evidence of the senses must therefore be discounted. This intellectual strategy resulted in a pervasive cultural relativism and intellectual nihilism that permeated all aspects of society and intellectual thought. Words and language were redefined to mean whatever one wanted; history was deconstructed--ostensibly to expose it's lies, but really to render it meaningless; and the ideas and values that were the foundation of Western civilization were mocked and shown by postmodern "logic" to be no better than any other random ideas.
So today's polls seriously presented as meaningful and full of import by a somber MSM at the behest of their political masters is nothing more than an attempt to hijack history and historical analysis. To strip it of its very meaning in the true postmodern tradition, and to ensure that it cannot be used by true scholars to expose the pathetic lies, abject economic failues and horrific human legacy of leftist thought.
I don't know what history will ultimately make of George W. Bush's policies--those policies and their implications are still reverberating and having an impact in the world. Change--particularly change that has historical consequences-- is never tranquil and will always be messy and tumultuous. My own opinion is that, like Reagan's actions in the Cold War --deeply controversial and heatedly denounced at the time--Bush's actions in the last eight years will ultimately set the stage for civilization's ultimate victory against the tyranny and oppression of Islamofascism. There are many factors that will have to be considered by future historians; not the least of which is the advantageous and treasonous alliance that the political left of America has made with the Islamic fanatics and which is an attempt to mitigate Bush's policies.
Indeed, if one looks closely so far at the Obama Administration's modus operandi, they have--in typical postmodern, contradictory fashion--rhetorically "undone" Bush foreign policy, while secretly trying to keep aspects of it that will cover their asses.
I am willing to wait and let rational and non-hysterical scholars of the future (and not the hysterical Hollywood/Congressional types) sort out those factors.
Team Obama is going to milk BDS for all the political capital it can, because for the losers of the political left, the only way to make yourself look good is to denigrate your competition.