Bush: It’s About Me and My Crusade

Bush: It’s About Me and My Crusade

It’s official: the 2004 campaign is a referendum on whether the United States should wage a crusade to bring liberty to the repressed of the world–particul…


It’s official: the 2004 campaign is a referendum on whether the United States should wage a crusade to bring liberty to the repressed of the world–particularly in the Middle East–in order to heed the call of God and to protect the United States from terrorists who target America because they despise freedom. Or, at least, that is how George W. Bush would like the contest to be framed.

In his acceptance speech, Bush pushed the message of the week–it’s the war, stupid–to lofty heights. Like the speakers of previous nights, he fully embraced the war in Iraq. But while John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Zell Miller, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Laura Bush depicted the war as an action necessary for safeguarding America, Bush also placed it within the context of an even grander mission. “America,” he proclaimed from that altar-like podium, “is called to lead the cause of freedom in the new century….Freedom is not America’s gift to the world. It is the Almighty God’s gift.” (Minutes earlier, New York Governor George Pataki described Bush as the Supreme Being’s gift to the United States: “He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge.”)

This rhetoric was nothing new for Bush. He has made these points previously. But at the end of a week in which the war was presented as the Number One reason to vote for Bush, he chose to highlight the messianic side of his military action in Iraq. It was this part of the speech that soared. During the first 35 minutes, Bush ticked off a laundry list of domestic initiatives, as Bill Clinton liked to do. But Bush did so without the enthusiasm that Clinton displayed when discussing such subjects. It was as if this was the obligatory portion of the evening; Bush had to talk about something other than the war to prove he has a second-term agenda. It was an act of self-inoculation, an attempt to preempt Democratic criticism that he doesn’t care about the close-to-home stuff. He tossed out a few new (but modest proposals) and the old standbys: health savings accounts, partial privatization of Social Security, tax reform, and tort reform. Especially tort reform–which the GOPers regard as a blow against John Edwards. The delegates roared when Bush pushed this button–much more loudly than when he promised more money for Pell grants or low-income health clinics. As for the details of his domestic agenda, Bush told the crowd to check his website.

He took a couple of spirited swings at John Kerry, deriding his challenger for having voted against the antigay Defense of Marriage Act, for having declared that Hollywood is the “heart and soul of America, and for opposing the $87 billion in funding for the Iraq war. And Bush briefly dished out the red meat to the social conservatives: a few words of support for “the unborn child,” a poke at activist judges, a vow to oppose gay marriage. But his passion was reserved for the war on Iraq and the larger undertaking.

The war, in Bush’s view, shows that he is willing to do whatever it takes to protect America, that he is a decisive leader whose determination to defeat the nation’s enemies cannot be questioned. “You know where I stand,” he said–implying you might not now where that other guy stands. And what’s more, the war demonstrates that he has a vision beyond kicking terrorist butt. “This young century,” he declared, “will be liberty’s century. By promoting liberty abroad we will build a safer world….We have a calling from beyond the stars.” Idealism (democracy in the Middle East), safety (whipping al Qaeda) and faith (God is calling) all rolled into one neat package. That’s not a bad sales pitch. And for a politician who occasionally blows his big speeches, he delivered this half of his acceptance address with strength and conviction.

This was not a transformational speech for Bush. “In general,” Senator Orrin Hatch told me, “it’s what we’ve heard before, but he did it well.” After Bush described the global campaign he wants to lead in his second term, he then did his down-home, self-deprecating thing: “People sometimes have to correct my English. I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it.” The message: I’m a regular fella whom you have no reason to fear. And while the speech was loaded with the standard misrepresentations–e.g., his choice was to go to war or take Saddam Hussein, a madman, at his word–it did present plenty of clarity. Yes, we certainly do know where he stands when it comes to mounting a crusade.

The obvious question: will the Protector-as-Missionary bit sell? Will voters hear the term “liberty century” and be moved? Or will they ask, is that the name of a new car? It’s one thing to turn a lemon (a messy war now considered a mistake by a majority of Americans) into lemonade. But can Bush turn that lemon into blessed wine?

My hunch is that Bush’s acceptance speech, no matter what was said, will not make much difference–given that he neither drooled nor pulled a Zell Miller. He came across in a familiar fashion. And after three-and-a-half long years, do voters need more information about Bush to render a decision? If there are any undecided voters–and perhaps they don’t really exist–were these citizens paying attention to this speech (or the convention)? And if they were watching, do they want a crusader in the driver’s seat? You tell me.

Handicapping this election is a mug’s game. On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that political observers and strategists have concluded that the “political terrain has shifted dramatically” in Bush’s favor and that “specific proposals are unnecessary.” One Bush adviser told the newspaper, “The strategists are saying, ‘Everything is breaking our way. It looks like it’s almost over.'” But on the same day, The Wall Street Journal noted that a Bush strategist “confided” that “I don’t think anything has changed since March. I don’t think this election will see a break out.” Go figure.

It’s impossible to assess how the GOP convention and Bush’s speech will play in the long run–meaning over the next two months. Intervening events–the debates, developments in Iraq, swings in the economy–will, well, intervene. But it is easy to discern the Bush gameplan. At this convention, Bush did not pussyfoot about. His message was nuance-free: la guerre est moi. In this regard, he is taking full and complete responsibility and asking to be judged accordingly. And God only knows how that’s going to turn out.

–The Journeys Bar, the Essex House, 2:42 am, with assistance–or companionship–from Douglas Brinkley, Michael Isikoff, Greta van Susteren, Mark Hosenball, Tammy Haddad, Dianne Robinson, Brian Doherty, Rosemarie Terenzio, and Ann Klenk. But these people have nothing to do with the views expressed above.


Read about my adventures in partying with conservatives by clicking here. And see my report on the problem shared by gay GOPers and fundamentalist Republicans. Or check out my review of McCain’s speech. And don’t forget my piece on Arnold’s and Laura’s big speeches. And there’s the column on how the Bush mob enlisted Zell Miller for a hit job on Kerry.


When you’re done reading this article,visit David Corn’s WEBLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read back entries on the Swift vets and other matters.


DON’T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN’S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is NOW AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, “This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research….[I]t does present a serious case for the president’s partisans to answer….Readers can hardly avoid drawing…troubling conclusions from Corn’s painstaking indictment.” The Los Angeles Times says, “David Corn’s The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case.” The Library Journal says, “Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations….Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough.” And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, “I’d like to tell you I’ve read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that’d be a lie.”

For more information and a sample, go to www.davidcorn.com.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It takes a dedicated team to publish timely, deeply researched pieces like this one. For over 150 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and democracy. Today, in a time of media austerity, articles like the one you just read are vital ways to speak truth to power and cover issues that are often overlooked by the mainstream media.

This month, we are calling on those who value us to support our Spring Fundraising Campaign and make the work we do possible. The Nation is not beholden to advertisers or corporate owners—we answer only to you, our readers.

Can you help us reach our $20,000 goal this month? Donate today to ensure we can continue to publish journalism on the most important issues of the day, from climate change and abortion access to the Supreme Court and the peace movement. The Nation can help you make sense of this moment, and much more.

Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Ad Policy