Why We Should NOT Hate George W. Bush.

"G.W. is already a lame duck!" This is what a friend said to me as we darted from the subway into our building. Manhattanites may be an exceptional group, but there are few "urbanistas" willing to admit to any liking for G.W. in my neighborhood. Ironically, both of the cities struck on 9/11 have been unimpressed with the efforts of this adminitration to redress the balance and punish the "evil-doers" responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well as to cope with future threats of terrorism, so that both D.C. and N.Y. opted for Senator Kerry in the presidential election. I have certainly never encountered such vehement dislike for a U.S. Chief Executive since the Nixon Administration, when my seventh grade class voted unanimously both to impeach and decapitate Mr. Nixon. (We were studying the French Revolution as the Watergate hearings were telecast.) Good idea, you say?

During the Clinton impeachment effort, I was a strong supporter of President Clinton. I liked him more for his ... let us say, "campaign effort" directed at Ms. Lewinsky than I did before. He revealed his humanity, among other things. I did not fault him for that. In Europe, personal peccadillos or "affairs" are not the public's business, unless they lead to graft or other corruption, an attitude that makes a great deal of sense to me.

All it takes is for everyone to be against some political figure, for me to become sympathetic to that person. I am a contrarian with a fondness for the lone individual against the crowd. Besides, I happen to think that President Clinton did a pretty good job as president, especially in terms of handling the economy. The most devastating critique of Clinton's character came from the Left, not the Right, in the form of Christopher Hitchens's devastating "little blue book."

I have some small experience of being chastised and misunderstood myself, not to mention more than my share of acquaintance with slander, duplicity and malice. I felt Clinton's pain. The "smiling, damned villains" I have known in my life would fill a volume or two. Hence, I have decided to reconsider G.W.'s efforts and to ponder the phenomenon of anti-Bush sentiment, so as to offer some suggestions to the Administration about how to cope with all of this ill-will, along with a spirited defense of the President's anti-terrorism efforts.

It is not likely that the Administration is hanging on my every word, but it is still a free country (Woody Allen in Annie Hall admits that he is a bigot, "but for the Left!"), so that I do get to express my opinions (unless there are more viruses directed at my blog!), so here goes.

G.W. is disliked by affluent Manhattanites and their counterparts in places like Hollywood or Paris, first of all, because of his manner, which is somewhat different from their own. Unlike many a tanned Hollywood producer, G.W. has been known to favor barbecues where meat, in the form of actual beef burgers, is consumed. Persons in more affluent homes in the vicinity of Hollywood or in the Hamptons, when they are visiting the east coast, have rarely been known to have a barbecue in their backyards, but when they do engage in the quaint practice, they are certain only to provide "tofu burgers" or other vegetarian fare and never, EVER "pork rinds" or "chips." No one drinks beer among the fancy folks, unless it comes from the Napa Valley and is "aged." This aging is something I insist on only when it comes to choosing the right bottle of Diet Coke.

Macho swagger is deemed insensitive, again, unless one is a woman and a lesbian. Some of my best friends are women and lesbians, I hasten to add, and I have been called a "male lesbian" myself. Thus, I should not be considered "politically incorrect" on this issue, much as I would like to be. When it comes to adults, I am "for" absolute sexual freedom for one and all, and for one with all. (See "Judith Butler and Gender Theory.") For the trendy folks, mention of God -- except with derision -- is a cause for laughter. I say this as someone who does not believe in any traditional notion of God.

On all of these fronts, G.W. is offensive. He mentions God. He has been guilty of the occasional swagger. He believes, as I do, that good and evil are terms that describe genuine alternatives in life. He does not use the currently fashionable jargon of false spirituality and does not sport a tattoo. These are heavy faults.

The first set of difficulties, then, are cultural and stylistic. Needless to say, most Americans for whom Hollywood develops its "products" share in these attitudes held by their president. Few people in the heartland are averse to an occasional barbecue or like to dress in black from head to toe on a daily basis, nor can they be seen with pure breed poodles of foreign extraction with designer haircuts, wearing tiny canine sunglasses, while strolling down Broadway. Most of us "simple folks" are not "Vegans."

I am hoping to convey a small sense of what it feels like to be patronized and stereotyped on regular basis, or even to experience much worse. Snide, insulting condenscension and instruction from people who have read less -- much less than I have concerning matters on which instruction is offered -- is quite normal in my life. Minority intellectuals and many women will understand this. After years of it, the experience is not very amusing.

I have a feeling that G.W. has been underestimated by many of these same trendy people, who find Texans (including the great Anne Richards?) automatically beyond the pale. Don't they eat big steaks? A fondness for burgers and fries alone is enough to exclude persons living west of the Mississippi from many parties in New York's East Village, though certainly not all.

Think of the hundreds of thousands of Kurds who died at the hands of Saddam Hussein's chemical experts, I doubt that their sufferings provoke as much animosity among the politically correct "thought police" as G.W.'s alleged difficulties with English syntax. Why is that? "Who cares about those Kurdish people? They didn't wear Armani. They weren't into the power of crystals. They don't go to the right parties. So fuck 'em."

Those of us who like Mr. Bush, even when we disagree with him (which is often), tend to be less stylish than our adversaries. We do not own fur coats, not for reasons of sensitivity, necessarily, but because they are too expensive. We own good, independent cloth coats and we're often told that "we'd look good in anything." Has anyone seen my dog Checkers?

True, there is an excellent chance that we will not get an invitation to the Oscars this year. Yet we do have a sense that, in a time of war and given the very real threats that we face, a Chief Executive may be entitled to the benefit of the doubt when it comes to security measures, which is not to deny citizens the right to dissent, respectfully, from measures that are deemed to be beyond the scope of legitimate security concerns or to violate civil liberties.

No torture. No suppressions of Americans' speech by any chief executive is O.K. Anyone proven to have committed a crime while in office should be treated accordingly, especially anyone who has participated in the hideous tortures at Abu Ghraib. Also, this Administration (like every other) will have to answer to history for its actions and there is plenty of room for cricism of the government's mishandling of relief efforts -- or incompetence -- after Katrina.

I am opposed to the Patriot Act, to cite one example, and much concerned generally about encroachments on civil liberties from all of the new "anti-terrorism" legislation. Such real issues are much more important to me than politically correct nonsense or moronic attempts at censorship in the interests of "niceness," as defined by the sort of self-loving fashionistas I regard as anything but nice. Censorhip of ideas is always detestable and evil.

The casual assumption that people who have often read much less than I have, as I say, and who know nothing about my "ethnic issues" are entitled to lecture and explain the world to me because, after all, they went to a socialist summer camp once and live in a nice building on Central Park West is, to use a term from poststructuralist theory, "bullshit." Tragically, it is such people who often write and get to publish books for the mainstream publishing houses or The New York Times. Those of us who actually have something to say, but are outside the club, are marginalized, ignored or dismissed. (See "John Updike and My Grub Street Blues.")

We "little" people also favor the things that most of Hollywood's politically active celebrities favor: access to health care, protecting social security, guaranteeing citizens the opportunity to obtain an education that is meaningful for the twenty-first century. These are traditional values I associate with liberalism. They are distinct from the "cultural controversies" of recent years. They are also distinct from efforts -- in New Jersey, for example -- to use political issues and party affiliation, usually by Democrats, as a smoke screen to obscure theft of public funds and self-enrichment. Most of the low-life, scum buckets in politics I have known have called themselves Jersey "Democrats."

But then, if you study the matter, you learn that G.W. is more liberal than you may imagine. By and large, the Bush administration's policies (given the reality of post-9/11 constraints) are fairly liberal on domestic issues. In fact, Mr. Bush is attacked by the right wing of his own party for not being conservative enough, as demonstrated by the reaction to the nomination of Ms. Miers to the Supreme Court.

Concerning social security, no matter what anyone does, there will be a political price to pay. I am not a fan of the Administration's proposals for "privatizing" social security. However, I agree that something should be done now to avoid a future crisis. On immigration, the Prez is seeking a reasonable compromise between extreme factions -- and he has been friendlier to Latinos than most Chief Executives, just ask the Attorney General (with whom I also disagree on much, like the Constitutionality of torture) -- so that Bush's suggestions merit close study. I support amnesty for immigrants who establish good faith and solvency in the U. S., even when their entry was illegal. I suggest that you forget about trying to have the National Guard monitor every inch of the borders. Lots of luck with that.

I part company with the Administration on the issue of illegal domestic spying. Saying "the President ordered it," does not excuse the failure to get a warrant. Keeping such actions secret makes it worse. Congress should be outraged, if such things occurred. They should not occur.

Judge John Roberts is about as good a nominee as one can expect from a Republican administration. This is not the nominee on which the Democrats should spend political capital. Incidentally, my favorite Supreme Court Justice is the late Justice William J. Brennan. I am pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and I believe that sexual-orientation is never an appropriate basis for discrimination by the State. If the matter came before the U.S. Congress, I would favor legislation allowing for same-sex unions, similar to the laws recently adopted in Spain. If you're a gay or lesbian person recruited to engage in cybercrime against me, then it's got to be about the money you're being paid because I'm with you on the issues. Say hello to Christine Quinn.

Ms. Quinn, whatever friendship you may feel for "Slim" Jim McGreevey should not get in the way of smart decisions concerning your political future. You do not want to be a part of this matter when it explodes. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "Is there a gay marriage right?")

I was against the war in Iraq because I was not conviced that Mr. Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, I was pretty sure that Hussein would have been happy to get some, if he could have. I am also sure that Hussein was a force for instability and a secret supporter of various terrorist networks. He offered financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers ($25,000.00), who struck innocent people of all faiths in Israel. I think that the Democrats were right to raise doubts about the war issue, but they caved in quickly enough when the matter came to a vote. Senator Kerry's position, for example, seemed to become progressively less clear with the passage of time. Perhaps he is not to be blamed for this, since the issue is indeed complex and difficult now.

The very people who fault Mr. Bush for his "simplistic reduction" of the world to "good" and "evil" factions, have no qualms at all about dismissing much of what he does and even him, personally, as "evil." If you point out that this is self-contradictory, then you are accused of being "insensitive."

No matter what one felt about entry into the war, unless one is totally anti-American and anti-globalization too, it should be clear that coalition efforts in Iraq cannot be permitted to fail. Senator Kerry recognized this during the campaign and was deeply troubled by the war issue. It is not an easy or simple matter to decide at this juncture. If coalition efforts fail in Iraq, then we can expect generations of bloodshed in the Middle East, more instability, insecurity in the world's energy supply and resulting economic catastrophes that will affect severely the poorest persons on the planet much more than the richest, so that even Mr. Mubarak (who is hardly an American "imperialist") warned on a PBS television show of the "tragedy and disaster" that would follow from an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq. President Mubarak and many others in the Middle East, are not fond of people (of whatever religion) who like to blow themselves up along with lots of strangers on a bus in order to make a political point. Anyone who kills innocent civilians, for any political cause, is a terrorist and should be treated accordingly. Tragically, our adventure in the Middle East and South Asia -- in March, 2010 -- is a matter of damage control and avoiding the catastrophe that now seems imminent. Mr. Mubarak's fall in 2011 and Egypt's current instability may prove much of what is said in this paragraph.

Many Democrats know this and are well aware that no American president, Democrat or Republican, can allow such a withdrawal to take place at this time. For this reason, Senator Clinton has not called for immediate withdrawal. Yet those who demand such a withdrawal hope to score political points by advocating what they know is not feasible at all. Michael Moore says: "Bring America's young men [and women] home right now!" If he knows anything about politics, then he must realize that such a thing is impossible until some stability and genuine prospects for lasting peace can be achieved in Iraq, regardless of who is president of the United States. Our efforts to "reach out" to the Taliban have failed. So why the grandstanding? Is there another documentary on the way, Michael? I suspect so. We have failed to understand what the Pakistanis have been saying for years: "The Taliban can win by losing."

Abu Ghraib is evil. It is also a public relations disaster for the United States, which undermines American credibility whenever human rights are discussed, but I do not believe that Mr. Bush and, say, Secretary Rumsfeld, sat at a meeting and suggested that it would be a great idea to parade naked, tortured prisoners around and have photographs taken for global consumption. Secretary Rumsfeld has said "on the record" that there was, and is, no "policy of torture." If this is not the case, then liberals should prove it. Otherwise, Secretary Rumsfeld is entitled to be treated with respect, even in disagreement. Regrettably, it now appears that Rumsfeld was "disingenuous" (if not lying) when he offered these denials. What Mr. Bush knew and when he knew it is anybody's guess -- including Bush's own guess from what I see.

The idea that people are entitled to respect even in disagreement has been lost in American politics. Worse, the tendency to delight in insulting and denigrating persons who disagree with the conventional wisdom of those fashionistas that I spoke of, is out of control. You cannot disprove a logical maxim in debate through cybercrime. ("Why I am not an ethical relativist.")

Yes, I am aware of the memos that have been uncovered recently. Two points to notice about the documents that have surfaced: 1) Few societies are "transparent" about such calamities. Yet the Abu Ghraib scandal has been thoroughly discussed in the U.S. media, responsibility has been acknowledged by government officials, and measures have been taken to correct the problem. We hope. The United States should never be involved in nor condone such evil as torture. The government has now made thousands of pages of documents pertaining to these events available to the public so that it will never happen again. Persons responsible are being prosecuted and will serve long jail sentences. There are more than fifty convictions so far. Anyone who is proven to have been involved in this disgraceful episode should be subject to legal sanctions. 2) Calling for vigorous questioning of suspects, concluding that they may not be covered by the Geneva Convention of 1949, and yet providing the protections of that convention anyway, as Mr. Bush CLAIMS that he did, allegedly, does not make him personally responsible for those acts. In the words of Shakespeare's Henry V: "Each man's [or person's] duty is the [sovereign's], but his conscience is his own."

Persons are tortured within the United States, often in jurisdictions controlled by self-professed Democrats. Yet this does not concern activists on the Left, it seems, whose sensibilities are affected only by the "inappropriate" actions of Republicans. I am an independent. I object to torture, whoever does it and wherever it happens, even if torturers happen to have friends who dress in black and eat kiwi, while glancing at The Nation magazine. Bush's torture lawyers, insanely, have escaped all liability (civil and criminal) for their heinous actions which have resulted and will probably continue to result in the torture of Americans.

To say that I was unconviced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, by the way, is not to suggest that there ever was (I keep insisting on this!) the slightest doubt that Hussein was a murderous and -- there is no other word for it -- an "evil" dictator, whose objectives in life were to build palaces for himself and observe the tortures of his people, while downing bottles of Champagne and smoking cigars.

No, Fidel Castro is not Sadam Hussein. There is a difference in degree that makes for a difference in kind. Mr. Hussein's victims number in the hundreds of thousands or millions. I am a critic of the Castro regime. I would be imprisoned, at least, if I were in Cuba today. The same would happen if I were living in a society governed by Castro's Right-wing opponents in the U.S., many of whom are fascist thugs, as opposed to many thoughtful Cuban-Americans and others criticizing that regime for its human rights record together with human rights violations elsewhere, including those in the United States. I would probably be better off as a dissident in Havana than in Miami or Union City. ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me'" and "Havana Nights and C.I.A. Tapes.")

The Cuban American National Foundation's belated interest in bettering relations with Cuba is (probably) a cover for continued opposition from behind the scenes to normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Whatever exists in Cuba today is better than what the fascism that I have experienced from some Cubanoid Right-wingers would bring to Cuba. ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security.")

Few tears have been shed at Hussein's departure. And I am deliberately using the word "evil" -- often and correctly -- so as to annoy those who claim that there is no such thing, while insisting that it is "evil" to claim, as I do, that there is such a thing.

If the result of the coalition's efforts in Iraq is a durable and democratic government with strong ties to the free world, then the conflict may well prove to be worthwhile. This is true despite the terrible price that is being paid, thousands of casualties so far, in the costly campaign to stabilize and bring peace to this critical area, which provides precious fuel for the global economy. If the coalition effort fails and the entire area is engulfed in conflict, then you may be sure that there would be many hundreds of thousands of additional casualties. I suspect, sadly, that the latter statement is the more accurate description of what has transpired.

A little fairness for a man in a nearly impossible job and some recognition that a "house divided against itself cannot stand" might be appropriate from the loyal opposition and might help a whole lot in the War on Terror. Protest and express dissenting opinions, by all means, but bear in mind that civility from critics of the Administration in a time of war is not too much to ask. A nation torn apart by ethnic and racial as well as political and cultural differences will not last long, nor can it meet the challenges of an increasingly dangerous and competitive world. No one who cares about U.S. interests will wish to trivialize the importance of a large turnout in the Iraqui election or the precedent that such an election sets in the Middle East, where ordinary citizens of all religions, in many countries, will not fail to appreciate the significance of FREE national elections in an Islamic society.

As elections were held in Iraq on January 30, 2005, a young woman -- yes, I said a woman -- braved car bombs and stray bullets to vote for another woman candidate on the ballot, for the first time in her country's history, and to say to a newsman: "This is a wonderful day for Iraq and for the Muslim world."

Are liberals against these developments? I hope not. Yes, there is such a thing as a "War on Terror". No, terror is not just "an abstract noun," but it is the only name for what happened on 9/11 in New York and on other occasions in many places in the world. It is also a name for the thing which prevents people from voting for their leaders or speaking freely in many places in the Middle East and elsewhere, or even from testifying in American courtrooms about what has been done to them and by whom it was done. Nothing will stop me from doing so. Terrorists is what we must not become.

Unlike the situation that existed under Mr. Hussein, people now can actually express their opinions freely, about Americans or any of the candidates for office, and by voting they certainly have expressed their disdain and contempt for the "mostly foreign insurgents" (Secretary Rumsfeld's phrase) who would obstruct their freedoms in the name of anti-Americanism. Helping people to vote for their leaders in free elections sounds like a good thing to me. The goal is for Americans to leave Iraq to be governed by Iraquis. Ideally, Americans will also depart from Afghanistan -- soon.

Mr. Bush's beliefs and struggles are far from "comical," whatever his alleged difficulties with the English language, for he has also been capable of profound and brave declarations at a time when a visible display of commitment to ethical values of any kind is deemed unfashionable and suspected. In his second inaugural speech, Mr. Bush said:

"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. [The U.S. soldiers in Abu Ghraib whose actions violate this principle are facing prison terms.] Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because, no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers [and mothers]. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time."

As a democratic socialist and an atheist or agnostic, I wonder: Will all of those who disagree with this principle of universal human dignity please stand up? Or is it that you only disagree with this statement when it is made by G.W. or by any Republican? No one? Yes, that is what I thought. Now let's hold him to this statement.