Victor Davis Hanson Crosses the River Insane-O

Via tbogg, here's the opening paragraph of Victor Davis Hanson'sNational Review commentary:

For good or evil, George W. Bush will have to cross the Rubicon on judicial nominations, politicized indictments, Iraq, the greater Middle East, and the constant frenzy of the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party — and now march on his various adversaries as never before. [emphasis added]

And just so we don't mistakenly think the metaphor is chosen carelessly, the article is titled Crossing the Rubicon.

Now, I'll concede that a shocking percentage of what I know about Rome comes from either I, Clavdivs or the HBO series. I do, however, have a layman's understanding of the context of the phrase 'crossing the Rubicon':

The river is notable as Roman law forbade any general from crossing it with a standing army. The river was considered to mark the boundary between the Roman province of Cisalpine Gaul to the north and the Roman heartland to the south; the law thus protected the republic from internal military threat.

When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC, supposedly on January 10 of the Roman calendar, in pursuit of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus he broke that law and made armed conflict inevitable.

In other words, it's the point at which Caesar defied the law, defied the established political process, and (effectively) declared himself dictator of Rome.

Hanson is surely not suggesting Bush do anything of the kind...or is he?

George Bush also should begin addressing his most venomous critics at home, by condemning their current extremism. He must explain to the nation how a radical, vicious Left has more or less gotten a free pass in its rhetoric of hate, and has now passed the limits of accepted debate. [emphasis added]

Call me paranoid, but when somebody as prominent as Hanson calls on Bush to 'march on his various adversaries as never before', and labels those adversaries 'venomous', 'radical', 'vicious', and 'extremis[t]', and says their 'rhetoric of hate' has 'passed the limits of accepted debate', I can't help asking is this guy really saying what he seems to be saying?

I think the answer is yes and no. If you asked him point blank whether he is calling for Bush to assume extra-legal powers, or for some kind of crackdown on dissent, he would be shocked at the question. He might even be sincere in denying it. At the same time, like Limbaugh, like Coulter, like Malkin, he's helping to mainstream the eliminationist rhetoric that would undergird any future attempt to curtail political liberties in America. He's not a Fascist (yet), but he's giving aid and comfort to Fascists yet to come.