[Texgreen] Is Bush really the Devil?

[Roger Baker]

<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/ 
2006/09/27/notes092706.DTL>


Wednesday, September 27, 2006 (SF Gate)
Is Bush Really The Devil?
Satan has better taste in shoes. Is far sexier. Can actually spell  
'Venezuela.' I mean, come *on*

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist


    It was a minor furor. A cute political hubbub, Dems and Repubs alike
reluctantly defending poor confused Dubya from the slings and arrows of
outrageous Venezuelans.

    George W. Bush is the devil! cried otherwise wonderfully  
charismatic but
also dumbly ham-fisted Hugo Ch&aacute;vez in front of a bank of U.N.
microphones. America is the Great Satan! agrees Islamic  
fundamentalism, as
it mindlessly firebombs a few thousand innocent cars and blows up  
various
KFCs in endless examples of idiotic violence that, ironically, makes  
Allah
shrink in humiliation.

    It's a delightfully common appraisal, this Bush-is-the-Devil  
thing, one I
hear frequently from my otherwise highly intelligent, liberal brethren.
But is George W. Bush really Satan? Was he really sent to us by an angry
and sighing God(dess) to test our ability to suffer toxic GOP fools with
greater humor and more sex and good scotch? Let us examine the evidence.

    Truly, Bush's claim to titanic evilness appears irrefutable. The  
list of
atrocities is so obvious as to be dazzling. Hell, can't we all sense his
pallid wickedness down in our very bones? Aren't we all more than a  
little
embarrassed by it? Isn't this the real reason everyone's so annoyed with
Ch&aacute;vez? Not because he's wrong but because he's just, you know,
horribly tactless?

    But I am here to tell you, it ain't that easy. I am here to set  
the record
straight. Well, straighter. Because unfortunately, no matter how much we
all want to believe it's true, Bush simply cannot be the Devil. He  
simply
doesn't have the chops.

    Let us turn, for a moment, to Milton's epic poem "Paradise Lost,"  
perhaps
the most heavily canonized and lovingly detailed examination of the
underworld and its enraged minions, where Satan cuts, quite simply, one
hell of a figure.

    Here is Lucifer, a massive, thunderous hero, subtle and  
intelligent and
enormously articulate, full of passion and red-hot anarchy, the ultimate
rebel. He is often seen reclining in his cavernous, rocky lair, lying on
his side, all muscled godlike beauty and ruined glory and deep seduction
and heat. He is just terribly, wonderfully alluring.

    See? Right there, already we're a galaxy away from Dubya. Bush,  
of course,
has no such magnificence. Bush is small and quivery and eats his vanilla
pudding with a fork. While Satan orates and philosophizes at great
intellectual length, Dubya can't even sit still during an entire  
State of
the Union address without fidgeting and moving his upper body back and
forth like a little metronome, twitching and squirming like a child.

    Also: Bush does not recline. He hunkers. Bush does not radiate hot,
seductive beauty -- he sheds sawdust and bad grammar like dandruff. Bush
is, it must be noted, about as sexy and alluring as mushy asparagus. Or
Ann Coulter. Same difference.

    It is, at least initially, a question of style. The Devil is always
preternaturally cool. The Devil is always powerfully sexy. He is the
grand, sympathetic villain full of potent aura, seductive force,  
excellent
badass cowboy boots made of forgotten dreams and kinky sex and extinct
pterodactyl.

    Bush is, of course, never cool. Bush isn't even in the same room  
as sexy
aura or charisma. Bush ambles, stutters, gropes German chancellors  
without
warning, speaks with his mouth full of bread and spits the crumbs on the
jackets of foreign leaders. Bush's cowboy boots are made of petroleum  
and
Elmer's glue and cheap cowhide from depressed, hormone-injected Texas
cattle. The Devil wears Prada. Maybe a little Dolce. Bush wears
tighty-whities and plaid. It is not an insignificant distinction.

    Ah, but image is not everything, yes? What of character?  
Intellect? Soul?
What of deeds and courage and compelling, ruinous action?

    In Milton, the glorious angel Lucifer's incredible act of  
defiance, his
stunning rebellion against God, marks him as not merely proud and  
insolent
but powerfully courageous. After all, Satan chooses to endure  
unbelievable
suffering for the sake of his independence, rather than endure numb
cubicle-like servility in heaven. Also, hell has better booze. Cooler
dance clubs. Less insufferable harp music. That sort of thing.

    And lo, here is Bush. Dubya is, everyone agrees, a bit of an  
intellectual
midget. He is a champion of sameness and mediocrity and unquestioned
obedience, a hero to absolutely no one with a functioning soul, the
cubicle personified.

    Is this really the mark of the Beast? Verily I say unto thee, it  
is not.

    What of Bush's supposed courage? His defiance? After all, he did  
defy
international torture laws, though not because he was full of hot nerve
but because Rumsfeld told him to and because he could get away with  
it. He
does ignore hard science for the sake of childish biblical literalism  
and
oily cronyism. And he does see himself as a rogue cowboy whose valor and
foresight in attacking the Islamic world won't be appreciated until long
after he's gone.

    Of course, it is a house built on Saudi Arabian sand, spiritual  
vacuity, a
secret wish for bloody Armageddon. Bush's is not the hero's journey.  
It is
the lackey's shuffle, the imposter's grope, the alcoholic's blind  
stumble
over the curb of human progress.

    Are there some similarities? You bet. Like Dubya, the Devil  
desperately
wants a grand holy war to settle, once and for all, just who owns the
kingdom of heaven. And Satan degenerates horribly in "Paradise Lost,"
begins to take the form of many "lowly" animals (a toad, a snake,  
etc.) as
he degrades. Bush, too, has devolved. He started out as a barely  
tolerable
but initially benign political tumor. He has since become dangerous and
deadly, a weird strain of Texas mold creeping into the heart of a wary
nation.

    The Devil smells of sulphur and fire. Bush smells of cow pies and  
stale
beer. The Devil is wickedly, tremendously deceptive, bending entire  
armies
of lowly demons to his will. Bush cleverly inflamed armies of lemming- 
like
evangelical Christians to vote for him by way of gay bashing and woman
bashing and fear, through the snarling machinations of his very own  
shiny
Moloch, Karl Rove. It's a worthy comparison.

    But alas, it is not enough. There is no majesty to Dubya. No real  
heat,
depth, grand intellectual power to his evilness. Bush is to a real  
Lucifer
what a rat terrier is to a werewolf, what Jack Daniel's is to a pure
single malt, what a heat lamp is to global warming: A pale wannabe. A  
weak
imitation, trying hard to scorch your soul but only managing a bit of a
rug burn.

    Sorry Mr. Ch&aacute;vez, but Bush is no Devil: He is not nearly  
capable
enough, sexy enough, charming enough, debauched or gloriously ruined
enough. Bush cannot possibly fill the Devil's gorgeous, tragic Prada
shoes. He's far more akin to something to be scraped from the bottom of
them.

                   **************************************

Ready for more Morford? Mark can be seen (and heard) in various Bay Area
theaters Thursday, Sept. 28, through Sunday, Oct. 1, as part of
writer-comedian Johnny Steele's "War on Error," a progressive political
comedy show! See JohnnySteele.com for details!

Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.

    Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and  
Friday on
SF Gate and in the Datebook section of the SF Chronicle. To get on the
e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of
clothing. Mark's column also has an RSS feed and an archive of past
columns, which includes another tiny photo of Mark probably insufficient
for you to recognize him in the street and give him gifts.

    As if that weren't enough, Mark also contributes to the hot,  
spankin' SF
Gate Culture Blog.

Copyright 2006 SF Gate