Who’s the Man?

As Neil, another Ezra weekender, noted, Ezra asked us:

I'm interested in the idea that, if Bush asked for sacrifice, a one time tax increase, a something -- if he said he and his VP and his cabinet would lead it by foregoing salaries for the year -- his numbers would skyrocket. Why, then, doesn't he do that? Why is this admin so allergic to sacrifice, to tax increases, to all of it? I don't think it's ideology -- they're more craven, and have proved themselves to willing to contradict conviction for that. So what is it? Just an ethical failure?

Like Neil, I’m not sure that Bush’s poll numbers would skyrocket if he asked for or offered a sacrifice, not at this point, because it would just be seen as a political maneuver rather than a genuinely altruistic proposal. As Mr. Shakes said earlier today, “The problem is that this administration is incompetent at absolutely everything except politics, at which they are extraordinarily good,” and not only is he right, but I think most people are starting to agree—even those who resolutely support him know that they’re better at politics than anything else; they just don’t care. So with the thought that it would likely be regarded as a wholly empty gesture, I doubt it would garner much enthusiasm.

That said, I’m not sure that’s not the main reason he’s not doing it. I think the main reason is that which has informed his aversion to sacrifice all along—it’s a sign of weakness. Part of the flag-waving, USA!-chanting, nationalistic jingoism that’s been a staple of Bush’s presidency is the belief that the United States is invulnerable. That’s why “remembering 9/11” isn’t for Bush and his supporters about exploring the policies that lead to our being a target, but instead about everything we’ve done since to fortify the American fortress. That much of it is smoke and mirrors is inconsequential when they can point to our not having been hit again as proof of Bush’s success in securing the country.

They’re not interested in sacrifice, but bravado. The indestructible American economy can handle tax cuts at a time of war. American security is so failsafe that we can handle sending our National Guard to foreign soil. We don’t need no stinkin’ international aid after a national crisis. It’s all untrue, of course, but Bush & Co. have determined (quite rightly, much to our collective chagrin) that “projecting strength” is all that’s necessary to keep their minions clinging to the veneer of infallibility that grants them carte blanche to rule like asinine bullies.

When you read through the Freeper responses to the disaster in New Orleans, it isn’t hard to figure why Bush doesn’t ask for a sacrifice. The comments are laden with expressions of disgust at the thought of donating to help out—why should I have to help out people who were too stupid to leave? They deny the fundamental vulnerabilities of the people who were trapped and combat any creeping remnants of a social conscience with contempt for the concept of societal responsibility. Bush isn’t about to show weakness now by offering to make or asking for a sacrifice. The only true believers he’s got left are the ones who mistake pigheaded callousness for strength.

(Crossposted at Ezra's place.)