Here in the shining light of dailyKos, Bush has been roundly condemned for his slow, aloof reaction to the tsunami tragedy. You'd be hard-pressed to find any defense at all of his reaction. Instead, you find diaries like:
No surprise to see these sentiments on Kos. But what about Bush's defenders? What do they say? Here's a case study based on my conversation with the ardent, unwavering Bush supporter I know best: my Mom.
My family is chock full of born-and-bred Republicans, living in assorted small towns in Kansas and Missouri. Soon after Bush upped his aid commitment to $350 million and Japan committed $500 million, I talked to my mother about the disaster. I started the conversation on the unquestioned assumption that she would agree with my first statement: "I'm glad we've increased our commitment, but for a few days there, I was embarrassed to be an American."
My comment was met with a moment of icy silence, and then my Mom proceeded to defend Bush on two grounds:
- "Well, I think at first he didn't understand the magnitude of what happened. Once he did, he increased the commitment."
- "You know, other countries could really step up to the plate too. We're not the only ones who can help."
I was flabbergasted. To be fair, there is some truth in her first argument: No one understood, in the first few days, the depth of the tragedy. However, lots of other people -- including the millions of American citizens disgusted by Bush's initial reaction -- were a hell of a lot closer in understanding its scope than Bush was. And Bush seems to have exhibited a consistent problem with quickly understanding the significance of events that have obvious, wide-ranging effects.
As to her second argument, she was totally unaware that Japan had committed $500 million. When I told her, her response was: "Oh, really?" She didn't modify her position. (Since our conversation, Germany has committed $669 million, moving the U.S. another rung down on the ladder of disaster leadership.) Moreover, she didn't seem to buy into my response that the U.S. styles itself as a role model and leader in the world, not as a follower who seeks only "to keep up with the Joneses."
My Mom, though a small-town Red Stater, is a pious and generally decent woman. I had fully expected her to agree that the U.S. has an obligation to take a clear leadership role in disaster relief, for both moral and political reasons. I had fully expected her to agree that Bush had blown it, even though she voted for him (and is unlikely ever to vote for a Democrat). I had fully expected her to recall the days after 9/11 -- when her son (me) lived two miles from the World Trade Center. I had fully expected her to understand that what is happening in South Asia is, literally, more than fifty times worse.
But no. Why not? I'm struggling to understand, but here are my ideas:
- Blind partisan loyalty. Like many on the right, she is simply incapable of seeing "their man" as wrong. Data inconsistent with her position -- like Japan's aid commitment -- is either unread, unreported, or subconsciously ignored.
- American jingoism/isolationism. Her comment about other countries failing to "step up to the plate" was a euphemism for, "I'm sick of carrying the ball for the U.N. and the rest of the lazy losers in this world." Screw 'em, and let 'em clean up their own mess.
- Racism. Imagine if the tsunami had struck northern Europe, where my Mom's family is from. Instead of seeing strange, dirty brown people clad in Halloween costumes on CNN, we would be seeing "our" brothers and sisters, in Fair Isle sweaters and Levi's. I am not sure what aid we'd be providing, because European countries have much deeper resources than South Asian nations, but I guarantee the nation would be far more empathetic.
- Revelation. My Mom is the same person who told me a year ago she had mixed feelings about whether the U.S. should actively attempt to encourage peace in Israel because she believed the future of the Middle East was preordained and destined to fall into chaos, regardless of what we did. Is there an undercurrent of fatalism at work here too? Does she -- and others like her -- believe that the tsunami is part of the inexorable march of Biblical prophecy?
Indeed, I think these same factors -- supplemented by general incompetence -- are what motivated Bush's halting, ungracious, and embarrassing response to the disaster.