President Pan

[babylonsister]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/#50193

President Pan
Posted by Melissa McEwan on April 5, 2007 at 12:18 PM.

(Bush's Belligerent Assholery in using the occasion of Congress leaving for spring recess to make three recess appointments, ergo bypassing the Senate confirmation process, reminded me of a post I wrote over two years ago about one of my least favorite of Dubya's many, many unappealing qualities -- his immaturity. Sadly, the post continues to be just as relevant today, if not more so, given that a Democratically-controlled Congress has brought to an abrupt and screeching halt the granting of Dubya's ever desire, and the denial of his wishes has exposed yet further depths to his childish petulance. So here it is again: President Pan.)

In responding to a Washington Post article examining what Bush’s legacy might be, Kevin Drum wrote:

I continue to dither about what exactly it is that motivates George Bush, but there's at least one thing that's always seemed clear to me: he is the most unfailingly partisan president we've had in a long time. It's genuinely hard to figure out a political philosophy that ties together tax cuts, Medicare expansion, war in Iraq, immigration reform, Mars missions, Social Security privatization, and vastly increased domestic spending, but even if ideological coherency sometimes takes a backseat in Bush's world, partisan advantage is always front and center.

I’ve thought about this a lot, too, wondering what is, exactly, the method behind his madness. Whole books have been written on the subject, and I cannot begin to fathom the number of words across the blogosphere dedicated to the pursuit of discerning the enigmatic motivations of this president are. Dry drunk, child of privilege, slave to overwhelming Oedipus complex, puppet, idiot…legions of hypotheses have been proposed, and yet instead of one having more veracity than another, I think they are all part and parcel of one pathetically simple overarching character attribute, so entrenched as to have become immutable. The man is pathologically immature.

A stunted child in a colossal candy store, he is the ultimate spoiled brat, with everyone around him catering to his every whim, indulging his fanciful desires, and never, ever, but never, telling him no. Those who may dare are quickly dismissed as disloyal, unpatriotic, or just plain wrong.

Attempts to find cohesion in his pet policies are futile, as whatever he fancies is what he pursues. There is, clearly, a theme that runs throughout many, though not all, of his proposals, which falls neatly under his label of “Ownership Society,” an ideology which itself exposes a puerile stinginess, with its emphasis on me over we. What is Bush’s proposed Social Security reform if not resistance against delayed gratification and a childish refusal to share?

more...

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. It's all some kind of crazy game to him. It's him against the world.

Why he is where he is makes absolutely no sense at all.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. The Caligula theory --

Haven't heard him referred to as Little Boots here in quite a while, but that was the common parlance around here a couple years ago - * as Caligula, the ultimate spoiled child.

[SharonAnn]

3. Read "The Authoritarians". Here's the link. He's a Social Dominator

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It’s about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.

“Well,” you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.” Or maybe you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve believed this for years.” Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the “Introduction” link on this page?

Because if you do, you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities--one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research.

For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?

Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.
Don’t think for a minute this doesn’t concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we’re passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us, as I did.

If, on the other hand, you’re way ahead of me, and believe the extreme right-wing elements in America are poised to take it over, permanently, I think you can still get a lot from this book. The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank-and-file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?

I think you’ll find this book “explains a lot.” Many scattered impressions about the enemies of freedom and equality become solidified by science and coherently connected here.

You think I’m pulling your leg? Push the button.

Bob Altemeyer, University of Manitoba

[katty]

4. finally, the perfect description: 'assholery' - bumper sticker pls