So I guess this had to be expected:

….Bush is truly a Trotskyite, a believer in permanent revolution. We have never had one as a president before. He wouldn’t understand that, but Wolfowitz would. He truly is. And he’s doing it — what he thinks he has to do, the revolutions he has to create, without any information, without any — without an ability to absorb information that’s counter to what he wants to hear. And so, I don’t know where you are when you have a man with as much power as he controls and as much ability to do something. I don’t know how we can get at him.

Seymour Hersh, speaking at the University of Illinois, May 10, 2005.
But what if Hersh is right?

TROTSKY.JPG

TrotskyNew.JPG

How can we ever hope to get at him?
UPDATE (06/29/05): While I didn’t see President Bush’s speech last night, other bloggers have commented on it extensively, but nowhere did I see any discussion or mention of Trotskyist (or Trotskyite) tendencies in Bush’s speech.
Well, Trotsky’s name did come up in Roger L. Simon‘s post, but only in a Jeffersonian context. (Link and general roundup to speech reactions via Glenn Reynolds.)
Obviously, further studies (like this one positing a “Trotskyist ascendancy over the conservative movement”) are needed.