fighting all the wrong fights

by Shane Nicholson

Published: February 22, 2008

The GOP and its subsidiaries: masters of false truths. More importantly, its followers are even better at indiscriminately eating every last bit of it up.

If you’re a Democrat, liberal, progressive or whatever lefty tag you want to throw on yourself, tell me if you’ve been in this discussion:

Them: “Well we had to go to Iraq.”

You: “Why?”

Them: “WMD/al-Qaeda/spread democracy/whatever reason that’s been debunked by any number of qualified persons, groups or government committees.”

You: “Yeah, but… (insert well documented/easily sourced rebuttal here).”

Them: “Well, I haven’t heard of (insert name of reputable organization and/or government committee here) saying anything like that. In fact, the American Enterprise Institute says…”

Simply put, the GOP defenders,faced with facts and insurmountable evidence to contradict whatever it is they’re trying to convince you of, will usually resort to talking in circles, the layers of unintelligible Hannity-esque commentary piling high. When all else fails they simply deny the existence of anything related to whatever the topic was in the first place and go on a tirade about bombing Iran. You know, we’ve got to get those nuclear weapons facilities… before they’re even built… which means we can’t identify them right now… so we basically need to bomb everything to make sure.

I must admit, being that delusional must be an effective defense mechanism. I sometimes wish I could pull it off; I’m sure I’d be much happier if I could pretend that nothing in the world had anything to do with my actions, like the feeling that my vote is wiped from the record the second I cast it. That way I don’t have to feel guilty about any of the terrible things the people I elect do! Wow, this is so easy!

One of my absolute favorites is becoming a stalwart of registered Republicans everywhere. That is the comparisons of Bush43 to Abraham Lincoln. Even a third grader who’s just gotten through the first semester of his American history class would find this laughable, or at least incredibly puzzling.

The argument goes like this: Lincoln was an unpopular president who fought off criticisms while engaging in a highly controversial war, the same as Bush.

So where’d this one start?

The president spent his summer vacation v.2006 in Crawford. When he wasn’t clearing brush he was plowing through two historical critiques of Lincoln’s presidency. This begs the obvious question: If Bush needs the entire state of the country parred down to one single sheet of paper every morning, how on earth did he possibly get through those books over a couple weeks on the ranch? Incredible, really.

I’m sure the president took his summer reading program very seriously, but clearly the lessons fell short of the mark. If this man could come away from a place mat in a Springfield coffee shop with a two paragraph bio of Abe on the back thinking that his presidency is anywhere near on par with that of Lincoln’s, well, he’s a more convincing megalomaniac than even I have given him credit for.

Trying to give a brief two line synopsis of Lincoln’s presidency would be wholly useless here; hopefully we’re all aware of his contributions to our country. But trying to sum up the comparisons between Bush and Lincoln in two lines is all the space one needs:

1) Both “Republicans,” at least in name.

2) Both two-term presidents.

That’s it. All of this strong will in the face of opposition crap goes out the window the second you view this with any sense of objectivity, which for Bush and his dwindling supporters is just not possible.

Of course, we couldn’t expect common sense to stop the GOP talking heads. After his speech at Washington University Tuesday night it appears as though “Bush = Lincoln” will become a staple of Alberto Gonzalez’s speaking engagements as he continues to practice his personal brand of mendacity in red-friendly theaters and lecture halls across the country. And in a piece plugging his “documentary” on Bush, FOX News reporter Bret Baier said, “I tell you what - he thinks about Lincoln… The country essentially hated him when he was leaving office.”

Hopefully somewhere in those two books it mentioned that Lincoln didn’t exactly leave office in the traditional sense. Or that just months before his assassination he was re-elected with 55% of the popular vote, carrying 22 of 25 states and winning 212 out of 233 electoral votes. Unpopular indeed.

Lincoln wasn’t brazen for the sake of being so. He didn’t try to manufacture his place in history and he didn’t shield himself with business partners and family friends. He was surrounded by people who fought him every step of the way, who constantly challenged his political ideals, whose intellect was admittedly beyond his own. More importantly, he surrounded himself with people who worked for the common good of the country. That difference alone is enough to squash any comparisons between the two.

Finally, Lincoln didn’t seek out idealogical battles in the manner Bush has, forcing his personal beliefs not only on his own country but others around the world. That truth is apparent to anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of this nation.

Not that the truth would ever deter a modern day Republican from saying otherwise.

—

(email this article or post to social network)

—