amphichon

Sorry, I’ve been avoiding politics (well, discussing or writing about politics) for quite a while, but I’m breaking my vow of silence on Bushco for now. I promise I’ll try to keep the rhetoric level low.

This struck me as too interesting not to post, anyway. The comparison was new to me, but Steve and Jen at the News Blog (see previous post) weren’t the first to compare Bush to Chance the Gardener – see this article at ctheory.net for a full discussion of the idea.

It sort of articulates something I’d been thinking about for years, whether we aren’t seeing a real-life sequel to “Being There” being played out in Washington. The problem is, Chance was simple, benign, innocent of the ways of the world, whereas Bush – as satisfying as it feels to believe that he’s as stupid as he looks – is probably not quite as simple as his critics paint him. I agree that the man is clearly several fries short of a Happy Meal, but he seems to have a certain cynical cunning. I grew up with a few guys sort of like this – they were sons of upper-middle-class families who weren’t quite sharp enough to make the cut in private schools (and with families not quite wealthy enough to make up the difference). They said and did the stupidest things at times, but even when the shit was coming down around their ears, there was always that smug lingering grin – the same grin that Dubya wears – the one that said that whatever happened, they knew their life was already on greased rails toward wealthy respectability, and even if they fucked up, Daddy would fix it.

Take away Chance’s naivety, put a silver spoon in his mouth, raise him among the power elite, and you’ve got Bush. He may not understand the words being put into his mouth by his handlers, or much of the paperwork that crosses his desk, but he knows how the system works and which side his bread’s buttered on.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS