The kindest thing I can think of is that he is trying to explain George Bush's actions and motivations in a framework he can understand
A couple of points about that.
The first is that these folks exist--the left-behinders. They are out there and they support Bush. How many of them there are and how prominent and influential they are, I don't have a clue. They may be marginalized, or they may be in Bush's cabinet, but they're out there somewhere using whatever influence they may have to their ends. I don't think it's extreme to give some thought and concern to what role they may play.
Attributing Bush's actions definitively to this influence is way over the top, I would agree, but I don't think the author did that, although he flirted with the notion. (You noticed that the author didn't claim that Bush was one of them.) Viewed from way outside the fundamentalist culture, it does not seem implausible and cannot be as easily dismissed as saying that the author "doesn't take [Bush] at his word." Bush has done nothing to disabuse those concerned about this but rather has left us with the occasional "tell" to keep the notion alive albeit not mainstream. As the author says, "we still have some difficulty in taking it seriously." I don't see anything extreme about wondering about it while not taking it too seriously.
My second point is about "the kindest thing..." You gave him some restrained props for that and I was pleased to see that. When people make an effort to understand alien cultures, that's a Good Thing. Sure, that process involves putting things in a framework they can understand, as you say, and that produces, at best, an imperfect understanding. But they should get credit for trying. Consider the alternative to trying. The alternative is bigotry--the co-opting of "reality" for one's own world view. Seems to me that when people get past their bigotry to try to get their heads around another way of looking at things, even if they miss the point, the glass is still half full. |
