Jewish World Review Jan. 13, 2005/ 3 Shevat 5765
The question on the lips of so many frustrated Democrats at the beginning of this year is why, with continuing violence in Iraq and the devastation caused by the Asian tsunami, Republicans are even contemplating holding an expensive round of parties surrounding George W. Bush's second inauguration? It's tawdry, unseemly and gauche, journalists cluck, that the GOP fat cats will dance at fancy balls and eat caviar while so many people are homeless in Indonesia.
The implication is that had John Kerry bested Bush last November, he'd have cancelled all revelry, made a dignified address to the nation on Jan. 20 and perhaps invited a dozen or so friends and advisers for cupcakes and coffee.
Obviously, this ginned-up controversy is pure politics, but what stumps me is why the media and Bush's adversaries are playing the game with such a lack of finesse. I don't care one way or the other about the galas that accompany most inaugurals, and would have no interest in attending, but as all politicians know, the quadrennial hoopla is the closing chapter of a presidential campaign. It's a way of rewarding thousands of donors, both corporate and individual, people who organized get out the vote efforts in key states, longtime friends and a lot of permanent Beltway residents of both parties.
Bernard Ries, a retired lawyer, wrote in the Jan. 9 Washington Post: "In his Christmas Day radio address, Bush admonished Americans: 'We have a duty to our fellow citizens, that we are called to love our neighbor just as we would like to be loved ourselves.' That sentiment would have been notably served if, on the day after the election, he had announced that his inauguration would be confined to one modest day of celebration and he had urged prospective supporters to redirect their contributions toward charities and the needs of our troops and their families… And, in thus displaying modest charitableness instead of what many have perceived as ungenerous arrogance, he might have made a good start on mending the rupture between himself and half the country (and much of the planet)."
Translated: We Kerry voters are still bitter about the election results and we'll try any method possible to smear Bush.
It's a dumb tactic. Not as dumb, mind you, as Sen. Barbara Boxer's grandstanding in Congress last week, joining a number of House members in protesting the results of Ohio's election, necessitating a vote on the legitimacy of that state's Bush electors. Two hours were wasted on debate in each chamber on the fake issuetime which could've been used to determine how much money each member of Congress was donating to the flood victims, if you want to be snarky about itwhich resulted in Boxer alone, among the senators, saying aye to the protest. As if to punctuate her reputationat least among most conservativesas a ditzy senator who appropriately represents CaliforniaBoxer said that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which chastised Democratic senators for note protesting Bush's first election, made her feel guilty about not contesting the Florida electors four years ago.
Margaret Carlson, a pundit who's bounced around from venue to venue, wrote in the Jan. 6 Los Angeles Times that canceling the inaugural festivities would signal a rare sense of humility on the part of Bush. She said, "What's surprising is the down-to-earth president doesn't get that the world has changed since his extravaganza in 2001. The master of identifying with the common man has blown such an easy opportunity to reinforce the image he's so ardently cultivated, an image that just won him reelection despite four years of policies undertaken on behalf of the uncommon man."
They can't help themselves. Rational people can debate whether Bush's foreign policy is wise, whether his tax cuts have helped or hindered the economy, but only the most brainwashed can actually believe that he hasn't been an activist president who has steadfastlyand courageously, in my viewdedicated himself to protecting this country's citizens from another terrorist attack and helping the "common man" in countries where dictators once ruled.
David Frum, in his National Review diary of Jan. 4, provided a primer on recent gaudy inaugurals for those criticizing Bush today. Specifically, the two Clinton affairs in '93 and '97, the first against a backdrop of "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia; the second after the Rwandan massacres. He adds: "This marvelous country can afford it all, including the cops who make it possible for the protesters to protest and the voluntary donations so that the celebrators can celebratewithout in any way compromising its contributions to humanitarian relief or its national defense."
You'd think Democrats eager to regain a semblance of parity in the political debate today would look to Bill Clinton, who refused to question the Ohio results and quickly congratulated Karl Rove for the GOP's across-the-board electoral victory in November. Clinton has no more genuine affection for Bush or Rove than Boxer does, but is clever enough to realize there's no percentage in raising pointless arguments. Journalists like Carlson were no doubt appalled that Clinton joined the President's father to raise enormous sums from private donors for tsunami relief, but that's vintage Bush and Clinton. You can smell the hypocrisy of both men from coast to coast when they praise each other, but these are two political pros who, despite different agendas, see the benefit of occasionally working together.
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor "Mugger" -- aka Russ Smith -- is the editor-in-chief and CEO of New York Press (www.nypress.com). Send your comments to him by clicking here.
© 2002, Russ Smith