As the presidential election looms on the horizon, lines of attack are being test—marketed by partisans of various camps, to see which ones are picked up by the press, finding resonance with the political pros, and the public. The Los Angeles Times today performs a little market research for the anti—Bush forces, publishing a fairly shameful screed by former conservative pundit, now anti—Bush neo—populist Kevin Phillips, publicizing his new book, a demonology of the Bush family.

The general argument of Phillips is fairly simple: The Bush family is a nefarious bunch who have been performing underhanded secret financial and political deeds for four generations, which have put them in the pockets of Middle Eastern oil potentates. His technique of persuasion consists of classic conspiracy—mongering, based on vague associations which sound suspicious or alarming, if lumped together. Here is how he establishes the foundational pattern on which he wishes to cast aspersions:

The first family member lured by the Middle East's petroleum wealth was George W. Bush's great—grandfather, George H. Walker, a buccaneer who was president of Wall Street—based W.A. Harriman & Co. In the 1920s, Walker and his firm participated in rebuilding the Baku oil fields only a few hundred miles north of current—day Iraq.

Golly gee! Phillips finds it important to tell us that Baku is 'only' hundreds of miles from Iraq, but fails to mention that it was then part of the USSR. He throws out the term 'buccaneer' with no factual evidence in the record, and finds it vaguely troubling that a blueblood Wall Street investment bank would participate in a major oil industry project overseas. Oil industry and Wall Street! Who knew?

The rest of the LAT article continues in this vein, throwing out scare words, and using vague verbs and adjectives to connect Bush family members to them.

Inquiring minds would question how a President so putatively in hock to Middle Eastern oil interests manages to be a firm supporter of Israel who also promises to transform the Middle East by firmly establishing democracy there. If Phillips's argument had any heft to it, he owes us an explanation of why he doesn't praise George W. Bush for transcending the limitations he inherited from his 'dynasty.'

When the 41st President, George Herbert Walker Bush, stood for election and re—election, there was ample chance to excavate all of these historical roots of his family, and many conspiracy theorists spun their webs. Dredging up such stale charges a fourth time is not only a disservice to the character of public discourse, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American public.

Posted by Thomas  01 11 04
McCall, ID