Bush, Absolute Value and the Time "Man of the Year"
Every once in a while, you realize that the apparently pointless concepts you learned back in math class were not completely without value. Or in the case of the Time selection of George W. Bush as its "2004 Man of the Year", absolute value.
Bush's second crowning as Man O' Year reminds us of the notion of Absolute Value. As you'll recall, the expression |x| meant the positive value of x, regardless of whether x had a positive or negative value. Wiping away the cobwebs, |-3| = 3.
So it is with the Time Man of the Year. The Time award does not recognize the goodness or merits of one's contributin to society and the world, just its absolute impact. In 1938, for example, Adolf Hitler got the nod for Munich, the Austrian Anschluss and Krystallnacht. In 1939, Josef Stalin was recognized for the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler, as well as a lifetime achievement award for eliminating Kulaks, purging opponents and hosting entertaining show trials. Stalin earned a second title in 1942 for resisting the Nazi invasion of the USSR.
In their day, neither Hitler nor Stalin had a "likeability advantage": far from contributing the greater good of mankind, they wrought horror, death and devastation. It was the shocking magnitude of their crimes and their staggering impact on the world that earned them each the recognition of Time. Again, the criterion for Man of the Year selection is absolute value, not absolute good. Put another way, size, not performance, matters.
And so it is with George W. Bush. Honored in 2000 for debasing American politics and the chaos in Florida, W joins the ranks of repeat winners in 2004. And for what? His accomplishments include the American disaster in Iraq, ruinous federal deficits, an unprecedented intertwining of religion and government that will work to the lasting detriment of both, secrecy and dishonesty in White House, and the further pollution of our civic and political culture. Not bad for a year's work.
George W. Bush: Time Man of the Year for 2004. What he lacked in quality, he made up for in volume.
Time said that the reason for the selection was the fact that he was re-elected. Look a little deeper to find out what that means. One of three things;
1. Either a Majority of Americans wanted to voice their opinions that Civil Liberties are a luxury, they're frightened, and want to do "whatever it takes" to kill the terrorists, and so far, Bush has shown that his policies are more capable, and criticism of those policies at this point would be counterproductive to the end of "kill the terrorists".
2. Or, the election was stolen. (no matter what you think about this, an honest look at the lack of audit capabilities of Diebold machines, and you have to admit it's a possibility).
For either of these two, whatever the reason, baby, that's the Story of the Year. Story of the Decade. Story of the Modern American Era. Either of these two possibilities is a profound statement on the state of Liberty and Democracy in America. Not necessarily a positive statement (depending on your point of view, I guess). But indeed, profound.