Is it wrong to call Bush “Boilerplate”?

A long-time VFR participant writes:

I notice that of late you have started using the term “boilerplate” as a name for President Bush. I find this a bit distasteful, and hope you will reconsider. While both of us have our policy disagreements with him, I think that good manners and appropriate respect for the office of the presidency should preclude the use of derisive appellations by us conservatives.

I replied:

I hear what you’re saying. I respect your opinions and it brings me up short to know that you disapprove. But to me it’s a very accurate and appropriate nickname for him. I admit it’s disrespectful. But it is not the equivalent of saying “Bush lied,” “Bush is killing American kids for oil and Israel,” “Bush rushed us into a war telling us we were facing imminent attack,” and so forth. Instead, it is precisely descriptive of what happens every time he opens his mouth. He does not inform us, as a leader is supposed to do. He just keeps feeding us the same slogans, which are mechanistic, messianic, and detached from any recognizable reality all at the same time. Yet as compared to the kinds of attacks that have become common in the last few years, my nickname for him seems like a traditional, satirical, humorous, and gentle way of expressing disapproval of a political figure.

Again, I feel bad that you’re displeased with me on this. I don’t take your criticicisms lightly. But I feel that with that nickname I’m conveying a truth about him and an attitude toward him that need to be conveyed. To me it is an act of protest against the congealed, chorus-like politics that now passes for conservatism in this country. At the same time, I’ve made my point, and also there is such a thing as excess, so maybe I will use the nickname less often than I have done lately. We’ll see.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 24, 2005 08:05 PM | Send