Serwer whacks Bush for cementing his approval of waterboarding. Bernstein gulps:
Bush, at least, doesn't seem to be headed in the "we do not torture" direction. And I do think that without him, it would be very difficult to move the Republican Party on this issue. The only other hope is that an explicitly pro-torture presidential candidate gets clobbered -- which certainly is a plausible scenario in 2012 -- but even then, it's more likely that the Rush Limbaughs and Marc Thiessens of the world would interpret such an event as a sign that the candidate wasn't sufficiently strident on the issue. There are to be sure quite a few conservatives who oppose torture, but fewer and fewer of them are candidates for elective office. Barring something new (and Bush could still flip, after all), I think a pro-torture candidate and platform is virtually certain for the GOP in 2012. And we know how the nomination process works (in both parties): candidates who are in reality basically similar in their positions on public policy are driven to differentiate themselves by taking high-profile extreme positions on symbolic, highly visible issues.
In my view, this embrace of torture - it is simply insane to describe waterboarding someone 183 times as anything else - is why the GOP needs to be defeated as a political force in its current incarnation. It is on the side of barbarism. It is an assault on America and the values generations of Americans fought and died for.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.