Things I don’t understand about Bush supporters

I’ve tried, really tried to understand the logic of Bush supporters. It isn’t easy, but I do have friends that support Bush, and we’ve talked about it. Unfortunately I’m still at a loss, so all I can do is catalog the things I don’t understand. I know that the tide has turned (dramatically) but that is mostly due to the war in Iraq. There are so many other things that should bother them about this administration as well. Here’s my list of things I still don’t understand:

1. From having our public library selections reported to the feds, to being wire-tapped illegally, this administration has curtailed our individual freedoms and revoked our rights to privacy. And yet their supporters, who pride themselves on being passionate about these very issues, don’t seem to mind.
2. Bush’s perpetual quest to increase the powers of his office doesn’t seem to bother his supporters, despite the fact that Bush will be replaced in 2008, and it’s looking increasingly like that replacement will be a Democrat. The next president will inherit these extra powers. When I point this out, my pro-Bush friends seem horrified. Apparently they didn’t think that far ahead.
3. The same people that claim that liberals want to take away their individual rights don’t have a problem with an administration that wants to block access to reproductive rights, the availability of advanced treatment for terminal diseases, and the right of consenting adults to commit to each other legally.
4. The very same people that champion small government and responsible spending don’t seem to have a problem with the fact that this administration has caused spending to skyrocket and government sectors to expand dramatically.
5. The neo-con strategy of using US military power to control dictators has been fundamentally flawed from the start. Clearly, if we’re willing to invade a country that has no nuclear weapons but unwilling to interfere with countries that do have nukes, then we’re leaving the dictators no choice: get nukes, and get them as fast as you can. Case in point: North Korea is now being allowed back into diplomatic circles. Those nukes are paying off already. So the party that claims to have a monopoly on keeping evil powers at bay has essentially ensured that our enemies will have nuclear weapons. What’s worse is that Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric provides strong motivation for these dictators to ban together and cooperate.
6. Bush supporters are unable or unwilling to put these three facts together and draw the obvious conclusion: (a) virtually everyone in this administration has powerful ties to the oil industry, (b) they wanted to invade an oil-rich country really badly, and didn’t care what excuses they had to offer to do so, and (c) oil company profits have skyrocketed.
7. In exactly the same way, Chenney was the CEO of Halliburton, and the Iraq war has blessed Halliburton with staggering profits. Coincidence? I think not. It’s unclear to me whether pro-Bush folks don’t understand that this is a blatant conflict of interest (to say the least), or if they’re so ardently capitalistic that they think it’s ok.
8. This administration, as a matter of policy, allows only those that provide a written pledge of loyalty to attend their functions. If the situation were reversed, and liberals were locking the doors to anyone that dissented, the pro-Bush folks would be screaming bloody murder. Elected officials are, after all, elected by the public, funded by the public, and bound (in theory at least) to serve the public. What possible rationale can be offered to defend these policies?
9. The pro-Bush folks accuse democrats of undermining the morale of the troops routinely, but continue to support them when they effectively renounce the codes of military conduct codified by the Geneva conventions, thereby virtually guaranteeing that US troops will be abused whenever they are captured.
10. To this day Americans are prohibited from visiting Cuba because it is a communist country, and yet we’re free to visit China. Furthermore, we’re doing mind-boggling amounts of business with China. In fact, Wal-Mart is China’s fifth largest trading partner. Last time I checked, China is a Communist state. What’s more, we’re funding our staggering deficit by taking out loans with, among other countries…China. This is not something that I would expect pro-capitalist, anti-Communist Americans to allow.

The number one response I get when disparaging the Bush administration in any way is, “We’re at war.” They claim that these things (if they are bothered by them at all) have to be tolerated in the short term because…again, “we’re at war.” First of all, Bush has made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t see this as a short term situation. Secondly, we are not at war. If we were at war, we wouldn’t be attacking countries that aren’t involved. If we were at war, we wouldn’t be shunning the UN. If we were at war, we’d be making sacrifices instead of being told to spend, spend, spend. If we were at war, the president wouldn’t be doing his best to polarize the population. If we were at war, we wouldn’t be skimping on combat efforts. When a country is at war, everyone knows it, and doesn’t need to be reminded. In contrast, every member of this administration has to remind us of the threat every time they meet any dissent.

Or, to put it another way, we are at war. It’s a war to insure that American “interests” overseas are available for plunder. It’s a war to optimize the rate at which American citizen’s dollars are surrendered to huge corporate entities, either through tax money (Halliburton) or directly (the oil industry).