Bush’s last chance for glory: destroy America
Howard Sutherland writes:
I have spent a lot of time thinking about GW Bush, trying to understand why he is so obdurate about mestizising America.
Latin America is known for caudillismo. Watching Bush in action recently, I think he is a caudillo-manqué. For a variety of reasons, Bush is comfortable with the Latin American (Mexican, at any rate) style of politics and society. Bush would like to be an American caudillo. The American system won’t (yet) allow that. The U.S. president is still commander-in-chief only of the federal armed forces. I’m sure Bush would welcome a presidency that would make him the C-in-C of the whole country. Have you noticed that he talks that way already? All that nonsense about being The Decider, for example. The immigration mess is a good example of caudillo-like behavior: Don Jorge finds the immigration laws inconvenient, so he simply ignores them. Those who are slow to get the message, like Border Patrolmen Ramos and Compean, may pay a price for their tone deaf over-zealousness.
Bush is not getting what he wants in the Middle East, and is scrambling for a legacy. Uplift of the Mexicans is the legacy he wants. In addition to being a family crony politician (one unsavory aspect of Texas that the Bushes adopted when they carpetbagged in from Greenwich), he is a liberal. Turning America into a Latin American country will help Bush feel good about himself.
I think the last hope to prevent the amnesty/”guest” worker invasion is an alliance in the House between truly conservative Republicans and populist Democrats. In defiance of their party leadership, in each case.
I would support a Tancredo candidacy. What I hope he will do (and it is a lot to ask) is be at least as firm as he has been about immigration and the borders, while presenting a balanced and conservative overall program. I hope he can make his run without simply being pigeon-holed as a single-issue “extremist.”
LA replies
I heard one of the tv commentators after the SOU speech say that Bush has been saying he very much wants the comprehensive immigration reform package to pass, because if it not passed, the immigration issue will tear the GOP apart for the next 30 years.
Now that’s a very interesting way of putting it. The real meaning is, as long as the GOP is divided between those who want to universalize—meaning Mestizize—America and those who don’t, this conflict will obsess the GOP and weaken it politically. So the solution is to universalize/Mestizize America now—break America so wide open that all meaningful resistance to Mestization will collapse. America as we’ve known it will be moved irretrievably into the past, there will be nothing left to defend, and so the “conflict” will have been avoided.
Alan Levine writes:
I read Howard Sutherland’s analysis of Bush with some surprise, as it seemed, at first sight, as merely a calmer version of Paul Craig Roberts’ rantings over the last year or so. But on second thought I had an uneasy sense that Howard is on to something….
The interview with D’Souza in Frontpagemag made me realize that he is an even bigger nitwit than I had thought. His agreeing with the maniacal Qutb’s ranting against American decadence c. 1949 would make a dog laugh. I would give at least one limb to have our country that “decadent” again.
Charleton G. writes:
it’s quite interesting that a member of an old Puritan descended Northeastern family would now be the president who is opening the southwest to this type of Hispanic immigrant assault. Recall, if you will, your American history and what was going on in the 1840s. Southerners, in order to try to maintain political balance with the rapid growth of the North, were attempting to carve out states in the American southwest. Polk launched a war against Mexico in 1848 which provided the territory. This war was extremely unpopular in the Northeast at the time as they did not want any more Southern dominated states admitted. We may have a man in office now who is taking his ancestors’ side and has decided to return de facto control of the southwest to Mexico out of a misplaced sense of noblesse oblige. This may sound far fetched, but I was jolted into this thought pattern from Howard Sutherland’s description of the Bush family as “carpetbaggers from Greenwich”. The Bush family were and are outsiders with no historical loyalty to Texas or the southwest. George Bush’s views and actions are consistent with those who have a liberal reading of our history.
Recall also what his father did to those Los Angeleis policemen in the Rodney King affair. After they were acquitted, Bush the elder unleashed the Justice Department on them to make SURE they were jailed. The son is no different. If it serves his purpose to throw policemen into prison to make a political point, he’ll do it. It’s the Bush family that should be tried and sentenced for what they’ve done to this nation over the past 20 years.
Bruce B. writes:
Charleton G’s theory on Bush is interesting, but I think it gives Bush way too much credit. While I don’t buy the “Bush is stupid” line, he’s just not that thoughtful. I think it’s as simple matter. He’s a liberal and a modern emotional thinker.
He’s clearly twitterpated* with Mexicans. This is speculation on my part, but some middle and upper class Texans have middle and upper class Tejano friends. I wonder if Bush falls into this category. Perhaps he projects middle and upper class Tejano qualities onto Mexicans. Also, he’s got it “in the family” via Jeb’s miscegenation, which just encourages his love affair with the Mexican people.
This last thought leads me to something else that’s been on my mind. I notice a very large number of whites on the Christian Right who, after having a couple of kids of their own, adopt a baby from another race (Chinese, black, Latino, etc.). Sometimes I wonder if they do this just to demonstrate what good people they are. It seems so consistent with modern Evangelical heart religion, Christian soft-rock songs, etc. I don’t mean to be heartless, but it’s awfully hard for our people to launch a realistic defense of our race when so many of us have the Other “in the family” even if it’s by adoption and not blood.
I feel like our society at large is essentially telling me (in so many diverse ways) that my descendents can’t be white
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 24, 2007 12:10 PM | Send