In a message dated 8/2/2004 11:30:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mccreery@xxxxxxx writes: It could be, of course, that this whole argument is misconceived, since the mere presence or absence of one or another president is supposed to have some magical effect. In some cases, I don't think we can contend that outcomes would be different if Gore were President, because many of the constraints on tactics were external. We probably didn't want to start pouring massive forces into the Pakistani tribal area because we feared that Mushareff would be overthrown, pro-Taliban factions would try to gain control of the Pak nuke forces, and that would cause us to intervene in Pakistan in a particularly terrible way. This isn't the Eisenhower Presidency either, but a far less powerful presidency, its executive powers reigned in and severely checked. For example, I doubt older-generation presidents would have had the trouble about their mistresses that Clinton did. Eisenhower would have silenced Kenneth Starr. Andrew Jackson would probably have shot Starr himself. While I agree (as Kerry said at the Convention) that it would be good to have a national leader who believed in science, I also think that the election year has everyone drowning in metonymy. By this metonymy, "Bush" has come to mean, not Dubya's particular directives or policies, but everything that happens. "Bush" becomes our scruples about the Pakis. "Bush" becomes FBI bureaucrats covering their butts. "Bush" is the PhD sweeping Walmart floors. "Bush" is the tacky, anti-intellectual, antipopulist fill-in-the-blank. That can't be right. If everything is "Bush," then we can't really complain about "Bush" because there's nothing but "Bush" out there, and hence nothing to which we can compare "Bush." It's "Bushes" all the way down. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html