Skip to content

Obama Derangement Syndrome VS. Bush Derangement Syndrome

February 23, 2015

There’s no comparison.

Ezra Klein thinks it’s reasonable to compare Obama Derangement Syndrome to Bush Derangement Syndrome. He’s wrong. In fact, the only thing he gets right in his entire column is the origin of the term Bush Derangement Syndrome…

In 2003, the conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer diagnosed a new affliction in some of George W. Bush’s fiercest critics. He described the condition as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.” He called it Bush Derangement Syndrome.

He goes on…

Bush Derangement Syndrome was, in other words, a function of 9/11 and the Iraq War: it was an effort, often misguided, to explain how the worst terrorist attack in American history happened, and why the most puzzling war in American history was launched.

Obama Derangement Syndrome is different. It isn’t so much paranoia about President Obama’s policies as it is paranoia about the man himself — that he is, in some fundamental way, different, foreign, untrustworthy, even traitorous.

That’s a straight up lie. The exact opposite is true. Bush Derangement Syndrome was all about hatred of the man himself. Most liberals still don’t even accept Bush’s 2000 win as legitimate. Liberals may dislike George W. Bush’s policies but they hate the man and many of them have accused Bush of being a traitor.

Here’s more…

What’s odd is that it is attached to a president whose presidency has been, in almost every respect, conventionally liberal. Bush Derangement Syndrome sought extraordinary explanations for extraordinary events; Obama Derangement Syndrome seeks extraordinary explanations for an ordinary presidency.

Obama’s presidency is not conventional in any way. No president before him has accrued so much debt. No president before Obama has championed legislation that directly impacts the American economy like Obamacare.

No president before Obama, with Nixon as a tepid example, has been so mired in corruption, the NSA, the IRS and Benghazi to name just a few which brings me to my final point.

Obama has many critics but for the most part he has the media, Hollywood and academia on his side. Bush had none of those. There is no comparison between the two.

In 2006, a movie called Death of a President fantasized about the assassination of Bush.

The film was even reviewed by the Washington Post, for which Ezra Klein used to work…

Bush ‘Assassination’ Film Makes Waves Across the Pond

Nearly every British newspaper on Friday carried photos of the “assassination” of President Bush — or, rather, the eerily realistic depiction of it from a new documentary-style television film that is causing an uproar in Britain.

The film, “Death of a President,” has been alternatively derided as a tasteless publicity grab and defended as a serious look at a plausible event that could have dramatic ramifications for the world.

Obama supporters can whine all they want.

Conservative criticism of Obama will never reach their unhinged level of hatred for Bush.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: