While not at the forefront of original political thought, I do greatly enjoy debating and arguing with folk on the other side of the political median. So as a springboard to hopefully more frequent posting, I’ve decided to pick one of the liberal blogs I read regularly and respond to posts that catch my attention (for whatever reason). At least to start out with, I’m using TAPPED for my sparring partner.
The post lately that’s been bothering me is one where Elisabeth Zerofsky points to a survey stating that Bush’s U.S. approval rating is lower than Stalin’s among contemporary Russians. Her final statement “Enough said” is a smug assertion that no other evidence is needed to demonstrate Bush’s evilness. This is stupid on so many levels that I think what bothers me the most is that it showed up on a site that I usually respect for it’s sanity.
First of all, of course a lot of Russians today like Stalin, because if they (or their parents) didn’t when he was alive they’d be dead now. Bush’s approval ratings would be great if he should ship off every one who didn’t like him to Antarctica, but America doesn’t quite work that way. Bush’s approval ratings are low because he mismanaged the toppling of an evil dictator and attempted crappy immigration reform. Stalin’s numbers are low because he brutally oppressed and murdered tens of millions of people. Of course those things must be on the same level to Liz.
Second, when the Russian history text books are blatantly teaching children that Stalin was the most successful leader of the USSR, that’s gonna skew some folks to your corner. I wonder if Ms. Zerofsky would be able to locate one school teacher, let alone text book, that says the same thing about George W? (Stephen Colbert does not count as a teacher.)
Third, standing against Hitler pads everyone’s approval a little bit. If W. helped end the holocaust I imagine his approval numbers would crack 40.
Fourth, Russia today is a shell of the former USSR, and many there long for the days when they were a feared superpower around the globe. Any strong historical leader looks a little rosier than who they’ve had lately.
I’m sure this is the kind of statistic that makes for great bar jokes at liberal conventions, but to post it in a political blog as a straightforward comparison is more than a little bit childish. On the bright side, at least we’ve moved on from everyone comparing Bush to Hitler. Maybe this counts as progress.
I know this was an easy post to shoot holes through, but I’m getting warmed up. The next one I tackle I promise will require more thought and effort.