The Bush Loyal Flush
April 09, 2001
by Meg Gardner

"Feminism" is dead. The word that is, not the movement. "Liberal" was killed in the eighties, but may be staging a comeback. "Christian" suffered a major loss about the time that "Liberal" was killed. With Reverend Phelps and Pat Robertson still bleating-on, "Christian" is not showing any improvement.

Now it appears that "loyalty" is in danger, too. I know that because the word "loyalty" is making me cringe now the way 'Christian' does when I hear it spoken or see it written. "loyalty" used to mean a strong, personal connection to someone loved and respected. Loyalty was earned naturally, not forced in any way. Except maybe the loyalty for the odd relative or two where loyalty came from a sense-of-duty along with love and respect for family. But, even then, loyalty is given out of free will.

Its plain to see what's gone wrong: the Bushies are killing "loyalty". We heard early on in the 2000 presidential race that George W. Bush prized "loyalty". In fact, "loyalty" is a Bush family tradition. We learned how it was young Bush's job to punish those who were not loyal to Bush the elder. We learned that the Bushies regard campaign money and commitments made early in a campaign far above money and commitment made later, when the outcome of the race is more certain. We learned that the Bushies were taking notes on those who questioned George W. Bush's campaign when it faltered. The media actually covered these Bush "loyalty" facts, so the Bushies must have meant for these nuggets to get out. Intimidation can work wonders when used appropriately as a tool of compliance.

I have a theory about the W. approach to "loyalty." We all know that George W. Bush has a short attention span. He tells us he is a born-again-Christian. He says he reads the bible often. Perhaps, this is where he gets his ideas. This makes sense because the opportunity for a fresh Bush thought is obviously very limited. The old-testament God used plagues, floods, and locusts to get human attention. God even ordered Abraham to kill his son to demonstrate loyalty. One could make a case that George W. Bush believes such "loyalty" is his due as the rightful leader of the American ruling class. He enjoyed revving up the Texas death-machine. He doesn't seem to mind bringing us to the brink of war with the Russians, Koreans or Chinese. Kill for him. Die for him. Don't ask any questions. Perhaps, George W. Bush hasn't made it past the Old Testament yet.

I have another, complementary theory about Bush "loyalty." It's called Fascism. Webster's second definition says Fascism is "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control." George W. Bush did say governing would be a lot easier if the USA was a dictatorship and he was the dictator. I believe he meant that with all of his much referenced "heart." ("Heart" is another word on life-support.) George W. Bush likes to see operations run smoothly by merely saying "Make it so" and letting others do all of the work. Of course, he doesn't have to suffer, earn anything or prove anything. Why should he? He was born into the royal family. I like to think of George W. Bush's administration as George II's water system. Where the top gets the fresh, filtered water and the rest of us get their effluent: dirty air, dirty beef, and dirty water. No wonder the sound of the word "loyalty" is starting to make me nauseated. As we've already seen, the "loyalty" only flows one-way. Ask Christine Todd Whitman, Colin Powell, Paul O'Neill and Ann Veneman's staffie how the Bush "loyalty" flows. They might be tempted to call it the Bush loyal flush. I know I do.

View All Articles