Cobb

The trouble is that Bill Clinton didn't run for president on character issues. Bush in this case is a bit like Gary Hart; by stating that he was going to bring back honesty and dignity to the White House, if it is discovered that he hasn't been, erm, entirely forthcoming about his past, then he's not been very honest, has he?

Of course, the press could drop that and just continue to ask why he claimed that Iraq had WMD with certainty when the reports prepared by CIA analyists did not contain that certainty. Or any number of other lies that he's spouted since assuming office.

Or, as V at Value Judgment wrote: "Bush's military record is a thirty-year-old story. Bush's claims about his military record (including "his" book A Charge to Keep) are very much a now story."

Twelve years ago, while preparing to vote for Bush Senior, I thought that the Republicans were being silly in raising Clinton's draft dodging that occurred twenty years earlier. I learned last week that John Kerry agreed with me back then. After all, we both thought that Vietnam was an issue we should put behind us two decades after the fact. Somehow, twelve years made this relevant again, at least for Democrats.
Besides still being silly, the allegations have no basis. I implore anyone who actually is allowing this issue to weigh in his or her choice for president to read this:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
If you're too lazy to go there or read it, here is the summary: Bush reported as was mandatory for every National Air Guardsman. He was subject to deployment to Vietnam at any time. The decision to not deploy national air guard came from the LBJ administration. While serving his time, Bush flew obsolescing planes. When there was no more need for him to fly unnecessary planes, the post released him early since they had nothing else for him to do. This all comes from one of Bush's fellow lieutenants there.

I especially like how the author of that piece worked in the Republican talking point of linking Kerry with Jane Fonda, among other TPs. You gotta admire an op-ed writer who can deliver off of the recipe list.

If the case is exactly as this Lt. makes it out to be, then Bush doesn't need to worry, does he? The fishing expedition now going on will return empty handed and the fishers will look worse for doing so.

Over at Tacitus, there's a post on the same subject, making a similar accusation about Democratic hypocrisy (though Tacitus doesn't phrase his stance as politely as Cobb does). The comment thread is now well over 500 comments long-- large even by Tacitus' standards. I think his remark hit a nerve.

That doesn't mean the character issue is irrelevant. I thought it was relevant with Clinton, and it's definitely relevant with Bush. I agree that, if this flap is over nothing, then Bush has little to worry about. In fact, one of the campaign advantages a sitting president has is that he can say, "You know... I don't have time for your petty bullshit. I've got a country to run"-- which is a dig against the opponent's own lack of presidential experience.

But is it nothing, this character issue? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know, so I plan on just watching and listening a while. I'm a student of religion in Korea, and one of the main value differences between Confucianism and the Western ethos is that, in the West, we say "Don't judge a book by its cover," but here in Korea (where I'm living, working, and studying), people say, "Inside and outside should be in harmony."

[NB: We'll put aside the grossly obvious fact that East Asian politics are as corrupt as they come-- my focus is on the ethos.]

To judge Clinton in a Western way is to say, "Oh, his private and public lives aren't in any way connected!" That rings false to a Confucianist. To try the same thing for Bush is just, well, more of the same.

I'm an American, so I generally subscribe to the American way of seeing things, such as "don't judge a book by its cover" (something we nevertheless do all the time). But the Korean Confucian in me hesitates to let our politicians off the hook when issues of character creep (or leap) into the public arena.

That's why it impressed me when Arnold flat-out apologized for his groping. Sure, it was a cynical strategy: "They'll be wowed by my honesty!" But at the same time, that's really what the situation called for, and as a result, only Gary Trudeau insists these days on caricaturing Arnold as a huge, groping hand at the microphone.

Bush's PR problem stems from a Bush-family tendency toward secrecy, which I think is what Cobb is getting at, in part. He invites the hateration because he doesn't acknowledge all the haters. I don't think secrecy is always a bad thing. Here in Korea, where people can't stand Bush, it gives me great pleasure to watch North Korea's Kim Jong Il tremble because he doesn't know whether Bush is crazy, stoic, or just stupid. No one can read Bush! The end result is a frothing North Korea whose violent rhetoric betrays its nervousness. They're really, really hoping for another Democratic president to dupe next term. Kim hates Bush because Bush is doing a toned-down American version of what Kim is doing, and the difference is that North Korea knows it's going to get its ass kicked in an open conflict. I myself don't know whether Bush is crazy or stupid or whatever, but the effect he's producing is marvelous.

From a Buddhist perspective, nothing is inherently anything. A tendency to secrecy, therefore, isn't inherently bad. But the wise man knows when to do what in which situations-- the "expedient means" known to Buddhists as "upaya" in Sanskrit. Bush, I think, has been clumsy about his secrecy, and not very articulate about crucial matters concerning not only his character, but his vision of the country's future.

Kerry, I think, is little more than a one-trick "I served in Vietnam!" pony. Not much of a senator, not very consistent in his rhetoric, and far too willing to give away the store to the feckless UN. He doesn't strike me as much of a defense hawk. But you know, if Kerry wins, one of my greatest hopes is that he does what Bush hasn't re: veterans' benefits.

Being president can be character-building, too, so once again the Asian wisdom here is relevant: it's never the end of the story. To declare that "Kerry's got issues"-- period-- is facile if this declaration is intended to be a definitive judgement. And saying the same about Bush is also facile, for the same reason: the story doesn't end.

To be honest, if John Edwards were the front-runner, I'd vote for him. He's the closest in spirit to what the Taoists would have called "returning to the One."

Heh.

Kevin

Thanks Kevin. It's probably not fair that although I am a Republican I don't find GW Bush inspiring in any dimension. So while I am not prepared to hear out every criticism of him, there are many I accept rather unconditionally most importantly that he is outclassed by the job and isn't up to it intellectually.

Because of this prejudice I don't accept the 'spin' that is put on him. We may not judge a book by its cover, but we expect the President to be 'presidential'. This means that he must not give any impression of weakness or impropropiety. Americans require a certain amount of restraint and dignity in the demeanor of the President and other elected officials, we want the cover of the book to look good even when we know or expect that the inside is out of harmony. It is because of the nature of compromise (and sometimes corruption) of electoral politics that we live with this contradiction.

Mr. Bush's great problem is that he is always playing politics and always trying to make himself and his policies appear to be better than they are. Much of how we judge his presidency turns on how we perceive the domestic situation to be, whether or not he has anything to do with it. I, for one, have given up on his ability to communicate his intentions and directions in a sophisticated manner. I find myself in the same state of disbelief I was during the Reagan White House - is this man really in control? Does he know what he's saying?

I think many people in my generation appreciate the ethos of harmony between inside and outside (which is rather scary considering how many people are pierced, tatooed and dressed in black). In Catholicism, we speak of sacraments as an 'outward expression of an inward committment'. I don't find GW Bush to anything but genuine, but what he genuinely is is not presidential material.

Again, if critics would concentrate on the substance of what he is doing, or doing wrong, as President, we'd be better off. Instead they are trying to reveal him as a fraud, which he is not, and those who voted for him as dupes, which they are not.