Matthew Parris wrote an article in the Times yesterday that engaged my annoyance. The basic thesis is that Bush need to win the election in November so that you Yanks can learn the error of your ways. Another four years of Dumbya ought to do ya.

Parris (the kind of guy DumbJon would call a T.I.N.O.- Tory In Name Only) badly needs a fisking, so a' fisking we will go.

Core to his approach is that Bush is an ideologue driven by the theory that 'liberal values and a capitalist economic system can be spread across the world by force of arms'. You will not find in this analysis mention of September 11th.

It is interesting that Parris says 'The opening American presidency of the new millennium — George W. Bush, 2001-2009 — should serve as an object lesson to the world for the decades to come.', because obviously if that comes to pass it won't be 2001-2009, but 2000-2008 that will be remembered as 'the years of Dubya'. This clanger is indicative of his approach: Parris exposes his readers to a dangerous contempt for the reality of history.

It will surely be obvious to an historical viewpoint that GWB was primarily energised by the fact that September 11th happened, and happened on 'his watch'. Parris talks of 'America's dream of becoming the new Rome'. If that is an accurate characterisation it will still always be remembered that the dream took root from a murderous nightmare. When he says that with the collapse of that supposed dream there will be 'no straw at which Republican apologists can clutch' he is patently wrong. Even a disinterested person could make that defence, let alone an apologist.

Again and again Parris makes the mistake of confusing a number of geo-political judgements with an ideology. He compares a Bush victory in November to Harold Wilson's Labour victory in 1975- which created the conditions for the Thatcher revolution in '79 by making us fed up with socialism. Presumably he has in mind Hillary in 2008 (2009 might be leaving her surge in the polls a bit late). Wilson was a socialist; Bush is a neo-Con, so Bush's failure ought to be like Wilson's. No. Bush's ideology only extends as far as ensuring America's security (how would he have energy for more?). Can you define Neo-Conservatism like you can define Marxist-Leninism? You can argue what 'security' means, but to suggest Bush wants to ransack the world on a neo-colonial binge is to depart the debating chamber, as Parris and friends so willingly do.

Following this Parris drifts off into a happy fog of comparisons with British dynasties- the Thatcher years, the Major years, the Blair years. What he fails to mention is one of the cardinal differences between the US system and our own: your lot only get eight years max. Thatcher fell after eleven years, a circumstance impossible in the US. If Thatcher had had only eight years she would be the untainted heroine of Conservatism, neo- or otherwise.

Having exhausted the ideological and dynastic arguments for failure, Parris goes onto the pscychological. You see, deep in your consciousness, you Americans are rather youthful and exuberant. You have this 'dawning neo-imperialist urge' which needs to be blunted, in response to which Parris says 'The answer to “because we can” is “you cannot”.

Parris is too polite to express his desire for as many US casualties in Iraq as possible, but that's what he's just said in so many words. One would have thought he would have been more interested in applying his dictum to people like Saddam Hussein's Baathists, 'The answer to "because we can" is "you cannot" ', but it seems extending the logic of his argument beyond the evil Americans hasn't occurred to him.

Parris proves himself a heroic defender of the lost Baathist status-quo. He says the neo-cons 'cannot allow themselves to think that an Iraqi insurgency could be anywhere near the popular pulse.' This poetic language is meant to obscure the fact that the 'insurgency' is indeed murkey and complex, very much tied into the Baathist past, and far from the regular beat of any supposed popular Iraqi pulse. Far more synchronised is Parris's analysis with those of analysts at the BBC.

Parris concludes by returning to his notion that ideology drives the US approach. He says 'A simple and moving idea resonates through all these words. It is the idea that the principles we now hold are, at the most profound level, universal'. Notwithstanding the fact that to dispute the universality of all the principles we 'now hold' would negate the possiblity that some rights are universal, this is missing the point. It's much simpler and less moving than he thinks. It's not about ideology, complex or simple, it's about security with honour and justice, which, according to the old American way, and in many strands of the British way, is the only kind of security that's real.

(Oh almost forgot to say thank you to Shot-By-Both-Sides for the link)