Eating Their Cake And Having It Too

By: Lisa Kadonaga

Now that the old year is history, its most concrete legacy, at least for me, is the parcel which arrived from my parents on December 31^st. It contained a fruitcake, which now reposes in my fridge - alongside the previous year's fruitcake, still wrapped in wax paper and tinfoil.

Some of my friends have been hinting that they'd like to drop by this month and wish me a belated happy birthday. This means I'm going to have to hide the fruitcakes, possibly in the linen cupboard. If Pauline sees the terrible twins, as I've started calling them, she'll suspect me of making fun of her - a couple of years ago, she happened to mention that her least favorite expression on Earth, one which is guaranteed to drive her up the wall, is "having your cake and eating it too".

"It's true", her husband admitted. "She heard one of her co-workers using it the other day, and almost took a swing at him."

Pauline explained that it was the sloppy logic which she found most annoying. "The implied disappearance of the cake should come first - otherwise, you could very easily keep the cake for a short while, THEN eat it. You're supposed to stress that they're mutually-exclusive choices."

I was fetching a glass of orange juice during the late night news when I happened to glance over at the fruitcakes. A clip from one of George W. Bush's speeches was playing on the TV, and suddenly things made a lot more sense.

For one thing, the baked goods were a perfect analogy. Secondhand, more than a bit stale, uninspiring, and kind of nutty - and only tolerated for their symbolic role. (Some White House watchers, referring to the red nose Dubya was sporting over the holidays, went so far as to suggest that the "alcohol-soaked" part of the metaphor might not be far off the mark either - or maybe it was just the First Lady's holiday trifle recipe.)

But in the larger sense, Pauline's statement also applies: Mr. Bush is a man who's accustomed to eating his cake and having it too. Regarding his performance in office, this seems to have spread to his most ardent supporters, who seem to be arguing from two sides simultaneously, as demonstrated by the following examples.

The Battle with the Bottle

First is the rumor that Mr. Bush is an alcoholic. This has been fuelled by hints and winks from Bush staffers and family members, as well as by George W. himself. Other conditions, such as Attention Deficit Disorder and dyslexia, have also been suggested by biographers and other observers.

Some people have said that these conditions have made Mr. Bush appear more human, and deserving of sympathy. After all, most of us know people who are struggling with various addictions, or having trouble in school. But we should note that public acceptance did not magically appear overnight. It's taken a lot of work by countless people, including a significant number of bleeding-heart liberals, over many decades to persuade the public that these afflications are not moral flaws, but genuine ailments. It wasn't too long ago that right-wingers routinely claimed that students who had trouble reading "just needed some discipline", not coddling by trendy academics and misguided social workers. (There are still plenty of conservatives who blame learning disabilities on either the students or the schools.)

The thing is, it's possible to reap the benefits of this public sympathy, without ever having to admit one's condition, or seek treatment for it. Mr. Bush has never actually said he was an alcoholic, and his mother (while admitting that his younger brother Neil is dyslexic) declines to comment on either of the Georges.

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, who shares many of Dubya's political views, is another such example. Last month he showed up intoxicated at a homeless shelter, argued with the residents, and threw the contents of his wallet onto the floor. A few days later he tearfully acknowledged he that had a problem, was going to battle it, but that he wouldn't be going to AA because he couldn't be "anonymous". (There are plenty of public figures who attend meetings, such as Martin Sheen, who are far better-known than Mr. Klein.)

There have been reports of Mr. Bush becoming aggressive or vindictive while under the influence. It's easy to dismiss these as a drunken lark, but being in this state doesn't mean that you're blurting out things completely unrelated to your thoughts. Trust Bill Clinton to say it best: "Don't drink in public, you might act like yourself." Alcohol being a depressant, it removes the inhibitions which you would have about saying or doing particular things. I call your attention to the Norwegian tradition of the "julebord", or workplace Christmas party - its purpose is for colleagues to vent their pent-up grudges against particular individuals, after everyone has gotten so drunk that they won't remember anything the next day. (A friend now living near Oslo recounted how bewildered she was to arrive slightly late at one such function, finding only "pairs of people shouting at each other".)

The Dimwittedness

All the way through the campaign, Mr. Bush had the benefit of low expectations. When he stumbled, some people were reluctant to criticize him too harshly, because it was disconcertingly like making fun of the handicapped. Slamming the guy for his fractured syntax, or ignorance of matters external to Texas, made critics look like pushy parents at a Little League practice - it might even have backfired on them. There's Georgie, bravely trying to swing his bat. Shouting "That's 'ARE our children learning?' - and stop dropping your g's!" seems like intellectual bullying. Enough to make you want to comfort the poor little fellow. And when he shows that he can read a script, memorize some facts, and recite enough "Mexican" to greet Spanish and Latin American leaders, people are apt to overcompensate with wild (and relieved) applause.

All well and good - I wouldn't want to live in a society that made fun of its weakest, rather than its strongest members - but the down side of being genuinely stupid should be that nobody would trust you to do important jobs. (Would you hire the services of a dumb architect, an incompetent accountant, or a bumbling brain surgeon?) And yet, Bush supporters are constantly pointing to his Yale history degree, his Harvard MBA, and his ability to fly a jet aircraft as evidence that he's more intelligent than his critics. If you dare say a word against the man, you'd better have an SAT score in the top percentile, a doctorate from one of Dubya's schools, "Top Gun" certification, and at least a decade running a Fortune 500 company - or you're clearly an envious loser with an axe to grind. Just the other day, Rush Limbaugh (who's not exactly a booster of the eastern intelligentsia) derided Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle for having graduated from a state university, rather than Yale or Harvard.

The Verbal Slips

On several occasions, Mr. Bush has said things which were not true. Twice he's implied that he had actually watched a plane crash into the World Trade Center on television, before he went into a Florida elementary school classroom that day. If we take his words literally, this couldn't have occurred - video of the first plane wasn't available for several hours, and he was already in the classroom with the kids when the second plane hit the other tower. I suspect that he meant to say that he'd seen that a plane HAD hit the tower (CNN was broadcasting shots of the damage done by the first impact fairly soon after). And even if it turns out that there wasn't a TV conveniently outside the classroom, I'm willing to give Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt - on that terrible, confusing day, he may have gotten the timing mixed up. Perhaps due to the fact that all the TV networks were showing the same clips on almost continuous replay, his mental editing process may have convinced him that he did see it unfolding exactly like that. Which might account for the fact that he repeated his assertion a few weeks later.

However - this is not the only time he's caused a misunderstanding. Not long after taking office, he enraged the North Koreans by appearing to accuse them of violating a treaty. White House spinners urged us to see this as just a momentary mishap with the ever-tricky subjunctive. That might have been the case, but during the election campaign, when Al Gore accidentally gave the wrong name for the FEMA official he'd been with while touring a disaster site - I didn't hear very many people on the other side saying it was a trivial error. By my count, Mr. Bush has made more misstatements in 2001 than either Bill Clinton or Al Gore made in the preceding eight years.

The Smirk

Admirers of George W. Bush - apparently, most of the national press corps - have had nothing but praise for the man's wisecracking and frequent boasts. They claim this shows he is witty and confident, and the fact that his sense of humor frequently emerges at inappropriate moments, is a sign that he's genuine.

Mr. Bush should look into patenting his smirk. A few months ago, reporters were lauding him for becoming a more thoughtful and contemplative person, and claimed that he had put a lot of effort into teaching himself how not to simper like that. (First they couldn't compliment him enough on it, and now they praise him for his discipline in breaking the habit.) Well, like a Roundup-resistant weed, now it's back. (A friend who's had some dog-training experience said she was tempted to send Karen Hughes a note: "Two words - shock collar.")

But anything that can stand up to the resources of the Bush Consortium (and let us remember George Sr. is no stranger to those ultimate practitioners of applied psychology, the CIA) - surely deserves some consideration. I say we should look into awarding the smirk some kind of national heritage designation, like Nixon's five-o'clock shadow or Washington's teeth.

The Privileged Background

When he chooses to downplay his patrician origins (13^th cousin of the Queen, and all), he's defined as a modest man of the people, who spurns snobbery and class discrimination. He's compared favorably to Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson (both Democrats) - if this were England, the comparable praise would be that "he has no side to him".

When Mr. Bush flaunts his background, however, it's only his rightful station, and America should be proud to have such a talented family that's decided to answer the call to public service. He's praised for being a symbol of dignity and tradition returning to the White House, and is compared favorably to Franklin Roosevelt and JFK (also both Democrats). At this stage, many right-wing commentators take the obligatory swipe at Bill and Hillary Clinton, deriding them as "trailer trash" and "obnoxious nouveau-riche types" who were totally lacking in manners and deportment. A lengthy itemized list of furnishings and Air Force One trinkets allegedly stolen by the Tacky Twosome is then presented, with the implication that the Bushes (all four of them) would rather leave office stark naked than be seen pilfering as much as a chipped teacup from the House of the People.

The Corporate Influence

During the election, one Bush voter I know was marvelling at the fact that he received multiple campaign mailings, complete with photos of the Texas governor, even though he'd only donated $200. Excited, he told everyone he knew about the "personal touch", and added his opinion that the millions of dollars in the GOP war chest was mostly from people just like him. He refused to consider the possibility that the "personal touch" was being underwritten by corporate donations several order of magnitude larger.

The Bush team downplayed the role of big business, and took pains to avoid talking about corporate connections. As for special interests like the NRA, Mr. Bush even told an interviewer that he would be much less likely to be influenced by the gun lobby than Al Gore, since the Vice President had been an NRA member at one time, while he himself had never joined that organization. (Given that they do provide firearms safety training, in this case I have to say that the NRA might do George W. some good, given his record with other types of complex equipment.)

And yet, when financial matters come up, mentioning the fact that economics was one of his worst subjects in school - and that the Harvard MBA didn't avert the demise of Mr. Bush's oil company - gets short shrift with his supporters. They insist that conservative Republicans are bound to be good for the economy - and that Mr. Bush has plenty of contacts in the corporate world - and that his being on first-name terms with the movers and shakers can only be an advantage.

The Great Transformation

Since the events of September 11^th, there have been two, often incompatible, views presented by the Bushies about what's happened. One school of thought argues that he's risen to the occasion, and transformed himself from a commonplace everyman into a magnificent, forceful leader. Mr. Bush's inner circle has imaginatively pursued a different tack: they contend that he's always been that kind of paragon, only now everyone realizes it.

Interestingly, both groups seem to coexist, inhabiting the same place at the same time - an apparent violation of the laws of physics. And for their next trick, they'll develop a perpetual motion machine, and alter the speed of light. (Why not - they're already trying to alter reality.)

The Post-Election Strategy

In all the fuss at the end of 2000, this little news item slipped past, almost unnoticed. The Republicans had prepared a contingency plan, suspecting that George W. Bush would win the popular vote, but Al Gore would win in the Electoral College. In that scenario, the GOP would challenge, using the contention that their guy had won a true mandate from the people, not snatched power via some legal technicality.

What To Do About It

Well - according to Mr. Bush's most ardent fans, it's only the wussy leftists who are slack enough to allow people to have it both ways. The sort who don't care if some welfare recipients commit fraud, or some guilty criminals are let off because there isn't enough evidence to convict, as long as truly needy folk don't go hungry and innocent people aren't sent to jail. After decades of griping by people whose days are ruined if they suspect even a handful of ne'er-do-wells of receiving undue reward - how pleasant to see them change their tune when it's one of their own.

So if you encounter people who are firmly convinced that any or all of the points discussed above make perfect sense - express joy that they have come around to seeing it our way. Be magnanimous in victory. Ask them how they're enjoying the delightful sense of freedom that comes from being so willing to overlook flaws or transgressions. Welcome, brothers!