Bush Admits Responsibility; Hell Expecting Record Cold Front

So the unthinkable has happened; George W. Bush has conceded that as Chief Executive of the federal government of the United States, he is ultimately responsible for "serious problems" in the "response capability" of that government.

I personally applaud this move, even though to me it is a rather transparent attempt to stop the massive hemorrhaging in his poll numbers (some polls put his approval rating in the high 30's, which is approaching the level at which only the serious Kool-Aid drinkers are still giving him the thumbs-up). There's actually some pretty descent precedent for this; think Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs, or Ronald "mistakes were made" Reagan and Iran-Contra. I think even Bill Clinton's belated admission to an "inappropriate relationship" with a certain pudgy intern helped him a little in the eyes of the public, even if he didn't really have any choice but to come clean--if I remember correctly (I'm too lazy to research this right now), he left office with approval ratings around 60 percent; W can only dream of numbers that high at this point.

It has to be noted, however, that this sudden humility marks an almost 180 degree turn for Bush. Harry Truman, the Democrat who led the country to final victory in World War II, was fond of saying "the buck stops here." By contrast, up until today the Bush administration's response to questions about its clueless response to Katrina has been "hey, don't play the blame game--oh, and it's really the fault of local Democratic leaders." This has been the M.O. of the Bushies from day one. No matter how glaringly obvious, they simply never, ever admit to a mistake or take any responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Intelligence failures led to 9/11? C'mon, no one could have predicted that and you're unpatriotic for even suggesting it, plus it was Bill Clinton's fault. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Well, we all know that the whole thing was always about bringing freedom to the Iraqi people anyway. A needless war continues two and a half years after 'Mission Accomplished'? Don't worry, the insurgency is on its last legs. Unbelievably high gas prices? Blame China, and anyway those oil companies have to keep up their record profit margins somehow. Torture at Abu Ghraib? Its just the fault of a few bad apples, so shut up and Support Our Troops. For five years now, the administration has lived by the words of John Wayne in She Wore A Yellow Ribbon: "Never apologize; it's a sign of weakness."

While I am personally glad to see the leader of this country actually owning up to an obvious failure, I can't help but wonder if this, and the speech he's planning to give on Thursday in New Orleans, will have the expected effect. Those who dislike him are probably not going to be won over by a mea culpa at this point; most of us have been too thoroughly alienated by him over the last five years. But I have a hunch that he just might run afoul of a few of his stalwart supporters with this new course of action.

Having spent most of the last ten years living and traveling in very rural America (i.e. Yerington, Nevada; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; etc.), I have had many occasions upon which to ponder the oft-noted phenomenon that Bush and the Republicans' most rabid supporters tend to be the very people who suffer the most at the hands of his deregulating, union-busting, laissez faire policies; working class white men who live and (when they can find it) work in rural and ex-urban America. There are a lot of theories as to why this is. Thomas Frank wrote a fantastic book based on the theory that right-wingers have pulled a phenomenal hoodwink on middle America, convincing them to turn their populist rage against a shadowy cabal of liberals who "really" run the country and "mock our values", with the only real effect of this upside-down populist uprising being conservative economic policies that make life even easier for the corporate over-class and much harder for the millions left to fend for themselves. I think Frank is definitely on to something, but I think that ultimately it's simpler than that; pardon my language, but I think way too many guys in the country have come to the conclusion that voting Republican has something to do with their dick.

It seems to me that in the minds of a lot of my fellow white guys, Republicans are the party of man's men, the party for self-reliant stoics who either improve their lives through means of their own or else accept their fate without complaining. To Joe Six-Pack, Republicans are the party that kicks ass and asks questions later (if at all) and never, ever, ever apologizes, even if the whole world can see that its made a mistake or two or nine hundred. In other words, Republicans are the "real men", draped in the flag and personally endorsed by Christ the Screaming Avenger. Introspection is for sissies and Frenchmen. Democrats? They're the party of gays and college professors and uppity women who don't shave their armpits. Ultimately, I think that what attracts a lot of men to Bush and his ilk is the fact that they are the administration that simply doesn't admit mistakes, even when those mistakes are glaringly obvious. Up to now Bush and his cronies have exhibited an almost pathological inability to see any of their actions as bad moves in hindsight, and I think a lot of people (white men in particular) love him for that. It's so very easy to confuse obstinacy with strength.

So we'll see if this new, vaguely contrite Bush plays well across the country. I tend to think it won't, but I am glad to see that at last he's taking a little bit of responsibility for his actions.