Bloom on Bush and Clark By Donnel Jones, October 15, 2003	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

No doubt Harold Bloom is among the most brilliant of American scholars. But he is hopelessly Democrat. Translation: Bush is a moron.

That is not what the illustrious professor claims. He is far too much a gentleman for that. In fact, his support for Gen. Wesley Clark for president reflects his penchant for a gentleman in the White House. Bush, presumably, is too ruffian, at odds with the Europeans—the same peoples who gave us a civilization the gifts of which Bloom is a foremost custodian. I might also add, churlishly, that as a Jew Bloom should also be aware that Europe continues to give us anti-Semitism—a time-honored tradition of which the French are the most rarefied practitioners. Bush clearly despises the hatred of Jews. Do the French? The Germans? Where exactly does Clark stand on Israel?

Bloom asks an odd question because he supposes the answer is so obvious: I put the question: Weigh Gen. Clark's qualifications against President Bush's performance, and who seems likelier to lead us effectively in the years of trouble ahead of us?

But why? Clearly Wesley Clark, whatever his virtues in helping bring down Milosevic and saving the Muslims in the Balkans (for which the Muslim world is almost entirely ungrateful), is a waffler in the war on terror. Clark hedges on whether or not the U.S. should have invaded Iraq. He plays Howard Dean one day, then Lieberman the next. Hey, instead of a general in the White House, why not a Jew?

Bloom says the general would help heal the rift with the Europeans. Why would this be necessary when the Europeans are doing Bush's bidding at the U.N.? We can have friends in Europe as long as they don't appease terrorists (such as trying to keep Saddam Hussein in power) and understand that Iraq's reconstruction remains under American control. The wound will heal well enough—with the Europeans coming around.

Bloom speaks of empire: the favorite political passtime of the academe. American empire indeed. Yet who ever heard of an empire that sought and delivered the autonomy of the nations it has invaded: Germany, Japan, Iraq anyone? What kind of empire pleads with Asian countries to stop artificially devaluing its currencies? Shouldn't we just charge ahead and whip them into place like Rome did in putting down a rebellion in Palestine?

Yes, you can speak of the ugly alliances and dictatorship-propping by America during the Cold War but the end result has been much better for the world. Wherever American power directly flourishes, there flourishes democracy and prosperity. With rising powers like China and India we need not worry too much about the academic weakness among brilliant men like Bloom to compare the U.S. to Rome: the Pax Americana will be balanced by India's and China's influence. And why not? Americans don't want an empire. They just don't want a mushroom cloud over an American city.

Let's keep Bush. He's tough, pleasant enough but never too gentile, un-intellectual but much smarter than expected, and not given to the self-apologizing, and entirely unironic Americanism that kisses up to the Europeans.