Why they love Laura

A single answer ran through virtually all the e-mails addressing my question why conservatives adore Laura Bush: she is not Hillary Clinton. But is the fact that Laura Bush is not Hillary Clinton a sufficient reason for conservatives to embrace her with such abandon?

The mindset of contemporary conservatives seems to go something like this: the left is awful and terrible, so anything that is not of that awful terrible left is good and wonderful. This leads conservatives to abandon any principles they may have had, and to approve anything so long as it is somewhat less bad than the left. In short, the conservatives have become relativists. The more left the left becomes, the more leftward the “conservatives” move, to find a position just to the right of it.

Here are some of the e-mails:

Nice post. And an important one (in my humble opinion). I think you’ve dipped a proverbial toe into a much broader current running through the so-called “right.” It’s something I’ve noticed when speaking with my relatives who live in red states, watch Fox News, and believe everything Bush and the RNC tell them. It’s something I call the Christian/Prozac culture that much of the so-called right practices nowadays. A new-era of “non-muscular” Christianity where the goal, along with Prozac and Ritilan, etc., is to make everyone feel good about themselves. No more redemption or cross-bearing hardships; this is an age where believe in Christianity alone, and of course an obedience to Bush Inc. will save us from the decadence that the secular world imposes.

I can’t put my finger on exactly what this current is … and I apologize for this strange email. I thought perhaps you sensed the current as well. Steve Sailer had a term for it … post-Christian something … where the goal is make sure that everyone is nice to one another. I think that’s what the right likes about Laura Bush and Condi Rice. They look nice. They seem nice. They say they are Christians … and what the heck, I’m too distracted by my television to think any more about it. Thus, Laura Bush is an antidote to Hillary Clinton because, while she may not have anything interesting to say, at least she’s not Hillary.

______

It’s part of the decision on the part of the Establishment Right to treat the Bush family as royalty. Regarding Laura Bush, I think she appears to be a 100% contrast from Hillary Clinton. Laura expresses bland liberal platitudes whenever she deigns to say anything. Hillary was very aggressive in hectoring us on a daily basis for eight years. There was, literally, no escaping Hillary. She’s now in the Senate. Laura seems to be a welcome change.

______

Well I want to avoid saying bad things about Laura Bush personally since I don’t know very much about her. But I agree with your statement about her routine at the correspondents’ dinner. I happened to run across it on TV and switched the channel. Do you know of any other commentators with similar opinions about her performance? I guess this is what happens when the 60’s generation matures (I’m in my 20’s). I don’t mean to sound like a wet blanket, but I just think that it didn’t have any class.

______

I agree with you about Laura Bush. I listened to her “one-liners” yesterday and she came across as a vapid, empty shell of a second-rate 1950’s comic reading lines from a pre-written script. Someone who doesn’t have enough in-depth feelings to utter her own statements without echoing a script.

“Desparate Housewives” is one of the worst liberal fantasies I’ve come across, funny only if one loves degrading marriage once a week. Instead Laura Bush chose to use it to try and evoke chuckles, and in looking at husband George on screen, the smiles seemed very forced and artificial (much like hubby’s policies).

______

Regarding her popularity on the right, all we need to know is that she is not Hillary. But Hillary is at least interesting in the way a car crash is interesting. Maybe we expect too much from Laura. Maybe expecting anything is too much.

______

Quite simply Americans did not elect her. She just happens to be Bush’s wife and lives in the White House with him. As she occupies no particular position in the American government it is of no particular significance whether she is dumb. More to the point isn’t it a bit refreshing compared to Hillary Clinton. Clinton was the feminist gal who could not do anything other than cling to her husband’s coat tails.

Which would rather have in the White House?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 03, 2005 07:46 PM | Send