Crabby Young Man: The big cover-up

I’m troubled by the presidential administration’s predilection for cover-ups. Not just the Enron-type cover-ups, either, but the more mundane tendencies of George W. Bush and Co. to thinly veil inconvenient facts and images.

I’m speaking literally. When John Ashcroft was scheduled to give a speech in front of a nude statue last year, he refused to go onstage until said statue’s naughty bits were removed from view. And just last week, Bush arrived in St. Louis to plug his economic plan in front of a massive backdrop painted with boxes reading ‘Made in U.S.A.’ Upon arriving at the factory where the speech was to take place, the president’s handlers planned to set up an impressive pile of real boxes to supplement the fake ones. Problem: all the boxes in the factory read ‘Made in China.’

So some poor intern had to grab a can of black spray paint and cover up all the ‘Made in China’ lettering. And Bush got to make his speech in a suitably pro-America setting. Unfortunately, by trying to pretend that the boxes didn’t come from China, Bush made the situation immeasurably worse. The story of the un-Chinese boxes was well-covered both in this country and abroad. If there’s one thing the United States doesn’t need right now, it’s more countries thinking that our leaders are idiots.

Of course, when you’re deeply indebted to a lot of corporation heads, as Bush is, you’re going to have to obfuscate to stay alive. Bush is supposed to be looking out for the public interest, but he also wants to take care of his rich friends. Look at the Bush ‘tax cut.’ He claims it will help middle-class Americans, as he must. Consider, though, Bush is rich. His friends and his father’s friends are rich. Most importantly, the people who helped him ‘win’ the election are rich. With these factors in mind, do you think that a Bush tax cut is likely to benefit:

a) the poor?

b) the rich?

Frankly, I automatically question any tax cut from a man who throughout his political career has shown a far greater interest in executing poor people than in giving them tax breaks.

The saddest part of this situation is that it’s not difficult to see past the tap dance to what Bush is really doing. His record in office so far runs contrary to almost every claim he made in his State of the Union address. He claims to care about the environment, but makes massive cuts in funding for alternative energy research. He claims his forestry policy will reduce forest fires. I have no doubt that it will, since it involves cutting down more trees, which certainly will mean fewer fires. He claims to care about human life, but relaxes gun regulations, tries to ban therapeutic cloning and executes minors. His record, not his speeches, says it all. Bush, when it comes right down to it, is a crappy cover-up artist.

This is unfortunate. The thin line between what Bush says and what he does, along with the fact that he continues to do what he likes, indicates that many of the American people either don’t object strongly, aren’t informed or just don’t care.

That’s the way of it, and we just have to deal. To be fair, though, I’m not totally against covering up inconveniences. On the contrary, if the administration has found a tactic it likes, let it carry on. I would actually argue for an extension of the cover-it-up-if-it’s-inconvenient policy. Eventually, we could move to actual members of the administration. In many ways, a well-placed piece of fabric on George W. Bush would make his public presence more respectable. It might stop him from making sentence errors that my computer’s spell checker could pick up.

George W. Bush before being draped in burlap: ‘If you teach a child to read, he or her will be able to pass a literacy test’ (Feb. 21, 2001).

George W. Bush after being draped in burlap: ‘Mmph!’

Anyone can see the improvement. And why stop with Bush? Many members of the administration could benefit from some well-placed fabric:

John Ashcroft before being draped: ‘To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve’ (Dec. 6, 2002).

John Ashcroft after being draped: ‘Mmph!’

Before long, foreign leaders will be unable to distinguish a covered-up George W. from, say, a covered-up department store mannequin, which would be at least as effective a leader.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan: Mr. President, your belligerent warmongering is causing us concern. Would you consider backing off on your threat to preemptively attack Iraq?

Fabric-Covered Department Store Mannequin:

Annan: So you are relaxing your stance on war in the Middle East?

Mannequin:

Annan: Wonderful!

But covering George Bush in burlap and replacing him with a mannequin will only get us so far. At some point, we’re going to need an actual president to reverse the damage that Bush has already done. The cover-up thing is nice for a while, but eventually it just gets old.