Morals of George Bush
by Matthew Riemer -- Source: www.YellowTimes.org A Moral Message Losing Legitimacy
On December 19th, 2002, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a report entitled "Wealthy nations ... U.S. stands alone in its embrace of religion." The report begins, "Religion is much more important to Americans than to people living in other wealthy nations. Six-in-ten (59%) people in the U.S. say religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self- avowed religious people in Canada (30%), and an even higher proportion when compared with Japan and Western Europe. Americans' views are closer to people in developing nations than to the publics of developed nations." Countries with a similar percentage to the United States were Venezuela, Mexico, and Turkey.
Such data can perhaps shed light on the public's view of things like politics and war and the criteria used when analyzing information and events. President Bush is a self-proclaimed religious man and this forwardness (as well as its subject) reverberates throughout much of his constituency. This is potentially one of the reasons why he is so revered by a great many people: he doubles as a spiritual everyman. Played out in rhetoric, this tends to lead to the "moralization" of one's activities so the United States' principles, goals, actions, and intentions are placed in a moral context, presented and explained in a we-hold-these-truths-to-be- self-evident manner. The concepts of "good" and "evil" figure predominantly in the exercise of logic.
Essentially, the argument for war in Iraq was -- as is almost everything else -- a moral one. As time goes on, and as other means and methods of logic fail moderate scrutiny, the moral argument that the world is better off without the evil Saddam Hussein is inevitably fallen back upon, revealing its fundamental place within the ideology advanced by pro- militarism advocates.
It is this ideological and moral stratum that unwaveringly supports the Bush administration. To these individuals, the issue of forged documents pertaining to uranium sales, over-hyped stories about aluminum tubes, and the absence of quantities of chemical and biological weapons consistent with Washington's "irrefutable" claims is a moot point. For many Americans, the simple destruction of "evil" is a solid enough pretext for large-scale military intervention, while innocents killed and all the other inevitable crimes and wrongs perpetuated during wars of "liberation" are chalked up to maxims such as "freedom isn't free" and the "price of freedom."
This, however, is not the mindset throughout much of the world, and it is here where the distinction between America and the rest of the first world on religion and moral explanations is useful to look at. The majority of Europe, not to mention the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and South America all opposed Washington's preemptive war and are far less convinced by political theories articulated through moral logic and imperative. It is this large swath of the planet's people and governments for which the Bush administration must satisfactorily explain its actions, even when they may be overlooked domestically.
These two political relationships -- the domestic and the international -- while separate, do interact very subtly, forcing the Bush administration to strike a fine balance in its rhetoric and propaganda. The international community and intelligent opposition in the U.S. will demand a more internationalized approach and level of accountability from the Bush administration than the traditional domestic bastion of support found most predominantly in rural America.
But now President Bush is beginning to receive criticism from an increasing number of quarters, whether about how to handle the Niger flap, or how to proceed in Liberia or in Iraq, or how secretive his administration is. This has led to a decline in the believability and legitimacy of a moral explanation for one's every move, as a growing number of people are no longer willing to just accept the Bush administration's statements at face value.
A year ago -- when much of the complex network of lies now being revealed was being laid -- moral politics had a greater currency with the American people who were repeatedly told by government officials and the corporate media about the incomprehensibly evil Saddam Hussein. One event -- Saddam's use of chemical weapons during an attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja -- was emphasized throughout the build-up to war to highlight Saddam's ruthlessness and efficiency as a killer.
The 20th anniversary of this massacre happened to be this past March 15th. In his weekly radio address to the nation, Bush invoked the memories of that day: "This weekend marks a bitter anniversary for the people of Iraq. Fifteen years ago, Saddam Hussein's regime ordered a chemical weapons attack on a village in Iraq called Halabja."
It must be remembered that this was an event that took place under the watchful eye of the Reagan administration, which, at the time, had nothing much to say about the incident, let alone ironically using it as a conduit for propaganda.
The emphasis on Halabja was not only an example of how the Bush administration's main message was the evilness of Saddam Hussein, but also, more importantly, the implicit conclusion drawn from such emphasis: that it is morally obligatory to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In other words, there is no debate in this matter; there is only one way to think.
But now the Bush administration is being forced to act in a more candid manner, and it's having troubling doing it. No one in the administration seems to be terribly frank. Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice don't even appear capable of acting civil. And there's a merry-go-round of blame revolving around who's responsible for the purchase-of-uranium-from-Niger line in the State of the Union address. However, the stepping-down of Ari Fleischer is a positive change. His replacement, Scott McClellan, is far less cynical and is actually willing to engage reporters in dialogue, occasionally saying too much.
Until this point in his tenure, George W. Bush has been able to rely on morality and the American public's response to that as the foundation for his rhetorical platform. The recent approach now being taken by critics on all sides, though, lessens the legitimacy of the traditional methods of justifying his and his administration's actions. The Bush administration's supposed professionalism and prowess are really propped up by a vast network of lies, deception, and complicity on behalf of influential organizations. For example, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) recently said that critics of the Bush administration may be fueling resistance to American forces in Iraq and that to criticize Bush is petty and partisan. So, in a sense, CSP is calling for a moratorium on debate regarding incredibly contentious issues, while invoking the specter of national security and the "safety of our troops" as its compelling reasons.
As the situations facing the Bush administration grow more complex and the presidential election and the campaigning filth it inherently brings draws nearer each week , it's unlikely that the CSP's wishes will be met. The idea that President Bush is literally beyond criticism is likely to offend more than it is to persuade -- especially if one is in disagreement.
[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]
