Friday, January 27, 2006

Brokeback Bush

<>When Bush was asked at a press conference whether he’d seen Brokeback Mountain, he responded by asking to talk about something he knew about, like ranching. More on that later.
<>The Homophobic Right seems surprised that a movie about gay cowboys could be so critically acclaimed and so well received by audiences in the –gasp- Red Heartland. It’s because they’re seeing things through a toilet paper tube. The movie’s got gay cowboys in it so it must be promoting homosexuality. Bad! Bad! In actuality, the movie’s about something all but the most perfect of us have experienced, the victory of convention over keeping something precious to us. Ang Lee just jells the story through a different set of eyes. But as soon as we see two cowboys sleeping together, the blinders come down and it’s about gay cowboys, not the great love that so many of us have thrown away simply because society expects something different of us.
<>The same Shrub who hasn’t seen Brokeback Mountain has staked his rapidly shrinking legacy and a good deal of America’s reputation on spreading democracy in the Middle East. Democracy, good! Good! Right? Well, this week the Bushite foreign policy bore fruit as Hamas, the radical Islamist party of Palestine dedicated to the destruction of Israel, won in a landslide control of the Palestinian parliament. Is it a surprise? Did Bushco not hear Iran’s rants concerning Israel? Does no one in Washington remember that we imposed democracy at gunpoint on Germany after World War I directly leading to the election of the Nazi party in 1932? Maybe that’s the disadvantage of electing an MBA President – no historical perspective. Islamism is a major force in the Middle East. It stands to reason that if you hold democratic elections in a region where Islamism is a major force that Islamism will be win elections. Supporting democracy in such a region is fostering the spread of Islamism although the ideological dilettantes of the Bush administration continue to believe that if you force a country to hold an election, you have a democracy. In fact, without the underlying civil structures of democracy, a free press, tolerance, respect of rule of law and rejection of violent solutions, all you do with elections is elect the next dictator and, by virtue of his being elected, give the next dictator legitimacy to, in this case, pursue the destruction of Israel.

Also, given the Bushite emphasis on spreading democracy, it would be hypocritical to deny recognition to the Hamas government of Palestine. Therein lies the trap of imposing democracy – you don’t always get what you want. They are democratically elected, right? We foster the spread of democracy, right? Put in language even Bushites could understand, democracy, good, right? Well, it didn’t go our way this time. It won’t go our way in Iraq next time. It didn’t go our way in Iran the last time around. These are democratically elected governments, good, right? Except they didn’t go the way we wanted. We now have to deal not only with the evil we opposed but with a new, legitimately elected evil as a direct result of a foreign policy that favors democracy at all costs. So now are we to turn our backs on fostering democracies and the evil ones we’ve produced? I would. Will we admit our mistakes and attempt to foster secularism even as radical Christianity attempts a hostile takeover of our courts and Congress? I rather doubt it. The short-sighted policies will win out and we will pay a heavy price for a long time for our MBA President’s lack of historical policy or realistic vision.

<>Which brings us back to ranching. Bush bought the Crawford ranch back when the Neocons decided he’d be the perfect Governor of Texas. Until then, he’d been a New England fratboy and New Orleans party animal. He’d had no experience “on the range”. So now he clears brush for the cameras. In Texas, where I am as I write this, they refer to this as an “all hat no cow” rancher. It would appear we could apply this appellation to the Presidency, as well.

p. s. Rebranding of domestic spying seems to be having little effect. Even Bush’s hometown newspaper the Houston Chronicle is still referring to “Surveillance of terrorists” by its proper name, domestic spying.