Georgie Boy, you crack me up. At present, I’m referring to Bush’s attitude toward those Canadians who disagree with his policies. I find it amusing in the same way that I find the “fat theft” scene in “Fight Club” amusing: I can’t decide whether to fall on the floor laughing or vomit repeatedly.
To begin with, this “man of the people” has been sheltered from the mere sight of protesters while visiting Ottowa, let alone on numerous other occasions here and abroad. This represents a very immature approach to criticism. Though I can appreciate the need for some level of security (Bush is bad enough - who wants a Cheney presidency!?!), I cannot help getting the impression that this is little more than a case of snubbing the disagreeable public, which presupposes an attitude that they WANTED to see him to begin with. They don’t want to see you, George. They want you to see them - oh, but I forget: you don’t watch the news.
This sort of protection of opinion was extended to the Parliament of Canada as well. I am reminded that when Ronald Reagan visited Canada during the height of our involvement with Nicaragua, he was heckled during his address to Parliament. With his usual aplomb, he responded “Is there an echo in here?”, which was met by jocular applause. Though he would be physically secure in this setting, Dubya has chosen to forego this opportunity to mend fences in support of his own hubris. Yeah, I guess security measures are being extended to the president’s ideology as well. Too bad those of us in dissent don’t receive the same treatment.
What we have here, friends, is a case of confused identity. We have a tough-talking cowboy who can’t tolerate to be disagreed with - and takes it like a snotty rich kid. So which archetype can we work with? For the sake of peace, let’s hope it’s not a case of “shoot first, ask questions later”.