On Thursday, October 2, 2003 at 13:31:29 (-0700) Devine, James writes: >In this case, the _ad hominem_ is quite relevant. If you want to >understand the Bush team, the fact that it's centered on someone whose >had "every advantage in life handed to him - Andover, Yale, Harvard, >inherited money and position - and he's still a provincial ignoramus" >says something about their policies. The Bushwackers do absolutely >everything for those with every advantage handed to them (tax cuts, >etc.) while expecting the great unwashed masses to do their dirty work >for them (including fighting and dying in Iraq). Bush's arrogance -- >and that of his team -- reminds me of the preppies I encountered at >Yale, who thought that the world was their oyster.
I disagree. Very nearly the same is true of Bill Clinton, Rhodes scholar and the opposite in every intellectual sense of George Bush. The fact that Bush is "stupid", or ignorant on any number of fronts, or privileged, tells us nothing about his priorities and policies. There are plenty of people that I know who are arrogant, but they also happen to be honest and generous. However, these attacks --- with which I don't have a substantive disagreement --- may play well with the chorus, but I don't think they help convince anyone else. Bill
