Sunday, April 06, 2003

Hypocrisy watch

In tut-tutting John Kerry for suggesting we need a "regime change," Thomas Oliphant opines thusly:
It's also misguided to use the word regime, with an antidemocratic connotation, about the United States. President Bush heads an administration, a government. Popular votes and Florida aside, his presidency is the result of constitutional process and it is legitimate. Regime implies otherwise. It is used for dictators and authoritarians, based on its Latin root that is all about ruling, not governing.

It is touching to see Mr. Oliphant's tender sensibilities about the appropriate way to refer to the President extend so deeply on Mr. Bush's behalf. One wonders if such considerations were conventionally applied to Bush's predecessor.

A quick Google reveals 2,100 hits for "Clinton regime" -- many of them from such supposedly respectable voices as the Cato Institute, CBS News, and various Republican members of Congress.

And a search of the Boston Globe's own archives reveals that the phrase has appeared no fewer than seven times in the paper's own pages.

Over Tom Oliphant's strenuous objections, I'm sure.

[]Via the Horse, of course.]

No comments: