Speaking of Reason magazine, a few weeks back they did a little celebrity poll over candidate preferences. Well, this is Reason. The best you could expect from them are Glenn Reynolds and Drew Carey. Slate did the same thing last week. What is interesting to see is that for most of those who said they were supporting Bush, they were supporting him because of the war on terror. OK, no that's expect. What is actually interesting is most everyone expressed it as Bush is the only person to willing to fight Islamofacism, that he understands this is a new kind of war, etc. etc.
Funny thing about that, I don't think Bush understands it in the way his supporters do. I may be reading my own analysis into the words of others, but after reading the commentary and the warbloggers the past three years, I see the picture of Al Qaeda as a Hitlerian movement but without the luxuries of electricity, running water or a capitol building to plan things from. That's a vastly simplified description lightened with bits of humor from me, but I think it it is a good starting description. Also, from this point, I agree with them on this point. Actually, I think everyone agrees with them on this.
Except George W. Bush and his administration. The Afghan war and more importantly the Iraq war seem to be him looking for a Berlin to attack. To them, there was no way Al Qaeda could have attacked us without someone at some capital offering logistics and support. The Taliban didn't just give him comfort and asylum, but logistical planning, and of course Iraq was or was going to be the next Berlin. Blow those two places up, and we've won! Or so they thought.
This was briefly touched upon on a Kerry profile done by the NY Times Magazine. That is a large reason I voted for Kerry. He seems to not only more understand reality, but he isn't under the idea that you can simply will reality to your wishes just through sheer hope. It's the Gabriel Garcia Marquez, magical realism school of political thought.
I'm not kidding...
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
That means exactly what it says... using facts to figure out what to do is so 'yesterday'! As a member of reality-based community, I am not comfortable with this. Especially since this faith-based stuff hasn't been working out. Bush has yet to will a WMD in the place, and he has yet to will away all of that violence that is on the TV news. Of course, maybe the liberal media is willing all that stuff to happen. (And that's why we need the cranks of the blogosphere.....I love you too, Instapundit.)
I shouldn't mock the press, though. The Onion seems to have this power. Look at last week's comedy article from them, and then look at this week's flyer.