The conscience of a conservative

Ah, William Kristol. He's on the very short list of Bush-supporters for whom I can find some respect, sometimes; in spite of himself. This is not one of those times. He responds to recent survey info:

57 percent of Americans endorsed that proposition that the president "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq," compared to 35 percent who thought he "gave the most accurate information he had." Five months ago, those numbers were 44 percent "misled" versus 47 percent "accurate information." Eight months ago, shortly after Bush's second term began, there were only 41 percent who thought Bush had "misled" them, while 53 percent credited the president with being "accurate."

Now, why have those percentages risen? If I had to speculate, I would say it's at least partially a product of the almost unrelenting bad times Republicans have been having in Bush's second term.

The electorate is unhappy over things like (but by no means limited to) the CIA leak investigation, and it's making them take a long look back at the President. That'd be my best guess, anyway. Does it surprise you to learn that Kristol sees it differently?

No new information has appeared in those eight months. All that has happened is an unanswered assault by Bush's enemies. The White House figured the election was over and didn't recognize that the anti-Bush campaign would continue.

Remember that right-wing blogger last month who responded to President Bush's job approval rating slipping to 39% with 17 surly paragraphs? And only mentioned once, in passing, the issue that, it seems obvious to me, is most responsible for Bush's failing fortunes: Iraq?

This is kind of like that. To Bush's supporters, he can never fail, he can only be assaulted by his political enemies. I'm at a loss to think of anyone who I like that much, in or out of the political arena. I mostly hated the last two Pet Shop Boys albums...

But funnily enough, Kristol himself provides another answer, in the very next paragraph, to the question of why more people trusted Bush a few months ago.

Lies can work when unrefuted. In a healthy democracy, they tend to boomerang when confronted and exposed.

But I don't wish to be mean to Mr. Kristol. I believe he feels pricklings of conscience that lead him sometimes to say the right things, even if he still feels the need to hide them in the wrong ones.

For example, look at his conclusions here. Shy of a couple of rewordings and grammar points, it's something I could say. Only I'd mean it as prediction, and he means it (or so he would tell you) as warning:

If the American people really come to a settled belief that Bush lied us into war, his presidency will be over. He won't have the basic level of trust needed to govern. His initiatives, domestic and foreign, will founder. Support for the war on terror will wane. The lie that Bush lied us into war threatens the Bush presidency in a way no ordinary political charge does.

I think many, if not all of us, can agree that most of that is true. It's just that we disagree on why it's true, and whether or not it's a bad thing.