Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

October 18, 2004
What will he be like?

Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan asks the question every voter should ask:

This insularity, of course, is not a sign of strength, but of weakness. So there are no deficits; or they do not matter. There has been no increase in domestic spending because the president’s plans say so. There was no insurgency in Iraq, just a fgew ‘dead-enders’, And on and on. The reason Bush cannot name a mistake he has made is not because he is smart enough not to admit error in public. It’s because he doesn’t believe he has ever made a mistake. If you are God’s instrument, how could you? And notice the only mistake that came to his mind: he allowed a few non-believers into his inner circle. You can be sure that won’t happen again. I cannot be the only person of a conservative disposition in politics to be alarmed at this kind of blindness in a president. Most people become tempered by experience; they learn from their mistakes; they adapt and reflect and adjust. Not this president. If he is as sealed off from reality now, what will he be like if he’s re-elected handily?

Posted by b on October 18, 2004 at 11:34 UTC | Permalink
Comments

How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?
None. There’s nothing wrong with that light bulb. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision and nothing has happened to change our minds. People who criticize this light bulb now, just because it doesn’t work anymore, supported us when we first screwed it in, and when these flip-floppers insist on saying that it is burned out, they are merely giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 18 2004 12:37 utc | 1

I think “Bush as instrument of God” is a cooked-up way to present Bush that clears away the need to answer for his actions. This role accommodates Bush’s many inadequacies and helps forestall any answering by members of the administration. It’s a shield and a mask, and it’s phony. I don’t have the impression that assertions of Bush religiosity are genuine. They seem much more to be a political device, adopted by people who are accustomed to being shameless.

Posted by: emereton | Oct 18 2004 13:52 utc | 2

I’ve come to the conclusion that Bush’s secret weapon is his stupidity. I don’t believe he’s really that stupid, but I think his mixing up words and various other mannerisms actually make a lot of people feel he’s one of them and they trust him because he doesn’t seem too “slick.” I’m positive he learned this from being a politician in Texas. There’s no trace of Yale, no trace of the elitist family he comes from, no trace of the Harvard MBA. He seems like someone people might hang out with over a barbeque.
For me, John Kerry is someone I think I would like to know personally, and Bush is rather frightening. But for that a lot of people out there, I’m afraid that’s not the case.
I’ve also known former alcoholics who turned from rather loveable if mistake-prone people into vigilant martinets, vicious in their condemnation of anybody else’s mistakes. Maybe there’s some of that in Bush too.

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 18 2004 14:20 utc | 3

I don’t have the impression that assertions of Bush religiosity are genuine
Neither do I. BTW that’s me above.

Posted by: jody | Oct 18 2004 14:21 utc | 4

There’s an obvious reason why you don’t see Bush going to church. And it is probably not because he’s just a heathen masquerading as a fundie. Clearly, if you have a direct line with God, you simply don’t need any priest as intermediary between Jeebus and your own soul. He’s just like Caligula who went into temples and stood beside statues of gods so that the Romans could worship both of them – except that there’s still the possibility Caligula knew that he was just perverting the system by showing them how they had become mere slaves of the Emperor, but with Bush there would be no doubt left.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Oct 18 2004 14:22 utc | 5

i think gwb’s dad hooked him up w/ billy and franklin graham for a reason. Whenever one feels the need to take bush’s religious rhetoric too seriously, reconsider what strauss outlined:
1. a leader must perpetually deceive those being ruled
2. those who lead are accountable to no overarching system of morals, only to the right of the superior to rule the inferior
3. religion is the force that binds society together, and is therefore the tool by which the ruler can manipulate the masses (any religion will do)
4. secularism in society is to be supressed, because it leads to critical thinking and dissent
5. a political system can be stable only if it is united against an external threat, and that if no real threat exists, one should be manufactured
One cover for sinister policies is to hide them behind a cover of incompetence and chaos. One of those yurica reports pointed this out wrt abu ghraib. Another yurica rpt quotes from a “teaching manual” on how the right is to take over the government of the united states, which illustrates bush’s role: We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms…
Two days ago on another thread I pointed out the amazon page for the 911 commission’s final report, where the reader reviews are heavily skewed w/ christian fundamentalist propaganda. At that time the number one customer recommendation (w/ over 160 recommendations) was “The American Prophecies: Ancient Scriptures Reveal Our Nation’s Future” which is a fundie book described as “According to author Michael Evans, a fundamentalist Christian minister, biblical prophets already predicted that America is doomed to collapse unless its government stops accommodating the Arab world for the sake of oil and instead offers full military and diplomatic support to Israel.” Now those 166 customer recommendations are no longer there. It was up for at least 3-4 days, which is when I first noticed it, but is no longer even recognized as a single customer recommendation.

Posted by: b real | Oct 18 2004 14:52 utc | 6

United Methodists Calling for Accountable Leadership

A Letter of Complaint Against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
We, the undersigned, do hold that George W. Bush, a member of Park Hill United Methodist Church (UMC) in Dallas, Texas, and Dick Cheney (local membership unknown) are undeniably guilty of at least four chargeable offenses for lay members as listed in 2702.3 of the 2000 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church. These offenses are: crime, immorality, disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The UMC, and dissemination of doctrine contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The UMC. For these offenses, we the undersigned call for an immediate and public act of repentance by the respondents. If the respondents do not reply with sincere and public repentance for their crimes, we demand that their membership in the United Methodist Church be revoked until such time that they sincerely and publicly repent.
…
In Conclusion
We, the undersigned, are also very much disturbed by President Bush’s many references to the significance of Christian faith in the decisions that he has made as President of the United States. George W. Bush has called Jesus his “favorite philosopher”, said that Jesus changed his life, and that his decisions are often guided by prayer. In fact, we feel that most of his actions as president have directly contradicted the philosophy of Jesus. Jesus said to feed, clothe, and shelter the “least of these”, not to starve, strip, and bomb them.
We are also concerned that the respondents seem completely ignorant of their denomination’s stances on many weighty moral issues and have consistently ignored the advice and pleadings of their own Council of Bishops. We, the undersigned, recognize that the Methodist tradition is founded on both support and accountability. Our leaders and our members have tried to support the respondents with prayers and petitions, but we fear it has been to no avail. At this point, we cannot be expected to “encourage and enjoin obedience to the powers that be” (2000 Discipline, p.66) when they are reckless and irresponsible with power given them by our democratic process.
Now is the time to hold them accountable, or to be judged ourselves by God for not doing so.

Posted by: b | Oct 18 2004 17:22 utc | 7

@b real
followed your lead on the 911 report the other day, and found that a pretty amazing little detail, it was as if the report was a fundamentalist document that was missing from a lot of church librarys — exclusively.
and katherine yurica has quietly been doing some great work, maybe essential, on the religious right, we all need to know this stuff.
it is an indoubtable fact that the unwavering, unquestioning, & unreasonable base of support for bush is the anti-secular religious right, and if he wins it will be because of them — and no longer will we just ratchet a notch or two toward theocracy, but many gears will strip off in the lunge for it.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 18 2004 17:26 utc | 8

@B@122PM:
Good find there B.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Oct 18 2004 18:42 utc | 9

found a cached copy of the amazon page w/ the now missing “our customer’s advice” entry for American Prophecies.

Posted by: b real | Oct 18 2004 19:13 utc | 10

Bush’s religiosity is entirely fake. It is a mantle he adopted at some point in life, to gain legitimacy, popularity, status, some “realness” or “solidness” as human being. That is the realist viewpoint.
On a personal level: people who are lonely and lost and desperate, no matter what their earthly position or possessions often nevertheless feel the need to to project their emotions and whatever love they can give somewhere – to feel, as one might say today, some “connection” – and when incapable of inventing their own investment, they often turn to a personalised form of established religion. All this has the effect of making them accepted, but very idiosyncratic, adherents. They tend to despise dogma and community and go for the personal view – “my own way”. Alarmingly so when they are powerful and/or obstinate. (Bush is both.) They can rarely (in my experience) use these feelings or insights creatively – they become stuck in a routine of professed personal belief minus the joy of discovery or giving.
Naturally, in Bush’s case the picture is muddied by vital political considerations (e.g. the Evanglical Vote), his interactions with his handlers, etc.
So, Bush’s religious adherence is both phony and real – ersatz but still there all the same, a kind of shoddy substitute for something more profound, a public ploy that does link to some personal feelings while furnishing considerable benefits, as it serves to shield him from the challenges and criticisms he is exposed to.
I mean, who is challenging God’s messages to Bush? People may challenge or question Bush, but not God, or the fact that he sends messages, etc.

Posted by: Blackie | Oct 18 2004 19:54 utc | 11

What will he be like?
Maybe like Brezhnev. Old and senile.

This kind of preparation for visits proved very useful as Brezhnev gradually started sinking into senile dementia. Answers to the questions his hosts would ask could be written for him beforehand in large letters on cards, although after a while, even this no longer helped.

Here is today’s “Global Test”. Please underline the correct expressions:
the Soviet Union adopted a policy of combating “anti-socialist forces”. The polict became known as “Brezhnev Doctrine”. It was in November 1968, speaking before Polish workers, that Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev gave the following justification:

The measures taken by the (Soviet Union / United States) , jointly with other (socialist / Western ) countries, in defending the (socialist gains / freedom and liberty ) of the (Czechoslovak / Iraqi ) people are of great significance for strengthening (the socialist community / UN credibility ) , which is the main achievement of ( the international working class / Free World ).
We cannot ignore the assertions, held in some places, that the actions of the five ( socialist / coalition ) countries run counter to ( the Marxist­Leninist / U.N. ) principle of sovereignty and the rights of nations to self­determination.
The groundlessness of such reasoning consists primarily in that it is based on an abstract, ( nonclass / pre-9/11 ) approach to the question of sovereignty and the rights of ( nations to self­determination / the West to defend itself ).
The ( socialist / Western ) states respect the democratic norms of international law. They have proved this more than once in practice, by coming out resolutely against the attempts of ( imperialism / communism ) to violate the sovereignty and independence of nations.
However, from a ( Marxist / national security ) point of view, the norms of law, including the norms of mutual relations ( of the socialist / with the rogue ) countries, cannot be interpreted narrowly, formally, and in isolation from the general context of ( class struggle / weapons of mass destruction) in the ( modern world / hands of terrorists) . The (socialist / coalition ) countries resolutely come out against the exporting and importing of ( counterrevolution / terrorism ) .
Concretely, this means, first of all, that, in its activity, ( each Communist party / The President of the US ) cannot but take into account such a decisive fact of our time as the struggle between two opposing social systems – ( capitalism / islamic terrorism ) and ( socialism / democracy ) .
This is an objective struggle, a fact not depending on the will of the people, and stipulated by the world’s being split into two opposite social systems. ( Lenin / Abraham Lincoln ) said: “Each man must choose between joining our side or the other side.Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco.”
It has got to be emphasized that when a ( socialist / western ) country seems to adopt a ( “non­affiliated” / unwilling) stand, it retains its ( national independence / security from terrorism ) , in effect, precisely because of the might of the ( socialist community / Coalition of the Willing ) , and above all the ( Soviet Union / United States ) as a central force, which also includes the might of its armed forces. The weakening of any of the links in the ( world system of socialism / Global War on Terror ) directly affects all the (socialist / willing ) countries, which cannot look indifferently upon this.
The (antisocialist / Baathist) elements in ( Czechoslovakia / Iraq ) actually covered up the ( demand for so­called neutrality / intent to restart programmes ) and ( Czechoslovakia’s / Iraq’s ) withdrawal from the ( socialist community / UN inspectors regime ) with talking about the right of nations to self­determination.
Such “self­determination,” as a result of which ( NATO troops / terrorist organisations ) would have been able to (come up to the Soviet border / operate in Iraq and gain WMDs) , while the community of ( European socialist / UN ) countries would have been split, in effect encroaches upon the vital interests of the peoples of these countries and conflicts, as the very root of it, with the right of these people to ( socialist self­determination / security from terrorism) .
Discharging their ( internationalist / multilateral ) duty toward the fraternal peoples of ( Czechoslovakia / Iraq ) and defending their own ( socialist gains / security), the ( U.S.S.R. / U.S. ) and the other (socialist / willing ) states had to act decisively and they did act against the ( antisocialist / anti-Iraqi ) forces in (Czechoslovakia / Iraq ) .
From Pravda, September 25, 1968;

It’s all the same. Only the words change. The devil is in the nuance.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 18 2004 21:29 utc | 12

Remember two things:
– First, it is not who has power that’s the problem. It’s that someone has power.
– Second, the founders of the United States designed inefficiency into the government precisely to prevent accumulations of power, having had immediate experience with imperial tyrants.
Beware those who would bring efficiency to government. A government that’s run like a business is a dictatorship.

The appeal of fascism

Posted by: b | Oct 18 2004 23:00 utc | 13

“sealed off from reality”
My latest pet theory is that W’s presidential persona is an NLP construct. With the strain of the election and failure in Iraq, it’s shattering beyond Herr Rove’s powers of mesmerization.
Anyone remember Armitage/Corto in William Gibson’s Neuromancer?

Posted by: catlady | Oct 19 2004 0:52 utc | 14

My latest pet theory is that W’s presidential persona is an NLP construct.
Sounds pretty good to me, catlady.

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Oct 19 2004 3:09 utc | 15

@b
that b a very fine link” the appeal of fascism”………….
did he call bush “a jug eared cipher” …………that’s got
to be an image of bush i’ll never be able to get out of
my head.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 19 2004 4:45 utc | 16

Catlady, yes… Armitage/Corto, very vivid memory. “Operation Screaming Fist” — Gibson’s a wicked satirist.
I find myself wanting to re-read Sterling’s Distraction. I’m about ready for the Netherlands to invade the US.

Posted by: DeAnander | Oct 19 2004 5:04 utc | 17

My latest pet theory is that W’s presidential persona is an NLP construct.
Catlady, Kate – I disagree with you. If Bush’s persona were a NLP construct, he would be functionen much better. Because through NLP that persona would have been integrated, what with him is not the case.

Posted by: Fran | Oct 19 2004 5:15 utc | 18

You must read this woman’s commentary on GOPUSA called
“Many times people don’t recognize greatness. “I have knocked on the door of this man’s soul, and found someone home,” said Democratic leader, Zell Miller, as he spoke of George W. Bush at the recent Republican convention.
The words of the columnist in my hometown paper still haunt me: “I wonder if Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld know, deep down, how awful war is?”
I believe George Bush sought guidance from God regarding this war. If only men who know war can lead us, then we would have re-elected George H.W. Bush and then Bob Dole, rather than President Clinton, who never knew war either, but yet sent soldiers to fight during his entire Presidency. We didn’t question him. Did we trust God more then . . . thus trusting our leader more?
When did we stop trusting God? When was our faith shaken? And if you say, “It’s all George Bush’s fault . . . then you’re saying it’s God’s fault. Is it just easier to blame the President?”
–good thing Zell didn’t knock on Bush’s head, or he would have heard that it is hollow.
this woman is so repulsive to me, yet she is the same irrational sort of person who will work with all her heart and soul to put a torturer in the White House yet again.

Posted by: fauxreal | Oct 19 2004 17:57 utc | 19

yikes. ”
called Oh Ye Of Little Faith.
Here’s the link:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ddaniel/2004/dd_1013.shtml

Posted by: fauxreal | Oct 19 2004 17:58 utc | 20

when God is in control, it doesn’t matter who’s driving the car.
that woman is scary…

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 19 2004 18:30 utc | 21

I really wish all these lunatics fundies would follow the example of the guys from Heaven’s Gate. Just make them willingly drink some potent poision and rid us of their stupidity once and for all.
Sooner or later, the (majority?) of sane people in our world will realise that if they decide the whole world is an “us vs them” issue, the “them” side can’t ignore it and is eventually forced to act accordingly.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Oct 19 2004 19:20 utc | 22

Many non-fundie Bush supporters have asserted that Bush is just ‘pandering to the fundamentalist base to get re-elected’. They, like cynics on the left, also believe that Bush’s religiosity is a front.
They insist that when Bush is reelected to a second term, he will drop the pandering because he doesn’t need the religious right’s votes anymore. Therefore they reason that in his second term, Bush will NOT push anti-abortion legislation, will NOT push faith-based governmental initiatives, will NOT push anti-gay constitutional amendments, will NOT nominate Scalia-Thomas type judges etc etc. They also beleive he will purge his administration of the extremists like John Ashcroft but keep so-called moderates like Colin Powell.
Never mind that this ignores the fact that the GOP Congress still has to pander to the fundies and that Jeb’s future political career is depending on turning out the extremist base. It also ignores the fact that Bush converted to fundamentalist christianity in his forties. He really is a true believer, which is a lot scarier than a mere political panderer.
But I believe that Bush’s heartfelt religiosity will dictate an irrational exhuberance [sp?] in his faith based policies and extremist appointments. When Bush uses his second term to force his warped religious views onto the Supreme Court, into congressional legislation and into administration policies, the non-religious, taxcut-addicted sheeple will turn to Jeb to ease their consciences. And of course Jeb will deliver the ‘moderate, uniter not divider, humble foreign policy, morning in America, kinder gentler nation compassionate conservative’ rhetoric the non religious Bushies crave so that they can convice themselves that they did not sell out their daughters and the bill of rights for another tax cut.
Meanwhile Jeb will benefit from the fundies perception that he is the heir to the god mantle. By then the damage will be done: Jeb will not be held responsible by the non-fundies for George’s extremist appointments to the Supreme Court.
Kerry should be pushing the Supreme Court issue to peel away more Bush moderates. Instead he is himself pandering to the religious right, which has already made up its mind to vote for one of its own.

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 19 2004 22:47 utc | 23

@gylangirl – good analysis – I see no reason to expect Bush to be less extreme in the coming four year, but many why he will be more extreme.
Snowcroft in the FT and other Reality Republicans may wish so but it is just that a wish. Sad. Lets hope Kerry will win by a decent majority. If he does not, the courts will give it ot Bush and he damage will be serious and all of us will have to pay for it.
Is there a parallel in the prohibation campaign in the early 20th century?

Posted by: b | Oct 19 2004 23:02 utc | 24

@b,
The prohibition campaign began in the late 19th century temperance societies as a ‘good intention’. As you know its failure resulted in the repeal of a constitutional amendment, due in part to a) intolerable mob crime and b) profit motive of liquor companies and retail establishments. So no I don’t see a connection…

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 20 2004 0:06 utc | 25

Back to Main