Deconstructing the legacy defense

The Austin American Statesman has a rather interesting article interviewing many of Bush's Texas staffers. There're some gems in there, including the Rove saying he is going to "name names" on people who stood in Bush's way from day one.

However, what really grabbed me was this line, frequently invoked by those who have made policy mistakes.

Rove said Bush did what he thought was right, not what he thought was popular.

Beyond the admission that the policies were unpopular, this statement also carries the clear implications that 1) the actor is smarter than everyone else, 2) the policies are, in fact, right, and any other assessment is wrong, and 3) the (historic) level of unpopularity is an inverse measure of the actors "courage."

The power of this type of statement is that the affirmative arguments are made in the implicit, meaning that this one powerful sentence requires a multi-paragraph debunking.

Another example of this style is the frequently invoked defense for the entrance to the Iraq war, "Would you like to see Saddam Hussein still in power?" as it reframes the entire Iraq/WMD/counter terrorism strategy argument into an ahistorical human rights debate.

Or, another personal favorite is Bush's frequent invocation that we should wait for history to judge his presidency (because we lack the broader historical comprehension that Bush is so full of.)

These are powerful tools in the legacy project, one line assertions that require essay level responses. There's alot of them out there.