http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1284520,00.html
BUSH
DURING THE 1999 IOWA REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY, CANDIDATES were asked which political philosopher had influenced them the most and why. George Bush offered this response: ?Christ, because he changed my heart.? Such assertions are well-received in the churches of America, a country where 40 percent of citizens identify themselves as born-again evangelicals. Bush is one of them. In 1986, following years of heavy drinking and perfunctory church attendance, he saw the light and traded the bottle for the Bible. This newfound zeal fueled the ambition and direction that took him first to the governorship of Texas, and ultimately to the Oval Office. Convinced that he has been called by God to lead the nation, Bush asked prominent pastors to lay their hands on him and pray for the future while he campaigned for president. Now that he?s in the White House, he regularly alludes to Scripture and reads devotionals every morning.
Bush looks to the Bible for policy guidance and prefers intuition to logic. Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer equates Bush?s ethical decision-making process to that of a 13-year-old boy. His Manichean good versus evil perspective of the world does not allow for any shades of gray. It is shaped by right wing preachers who believe Satan exists and who talk about evil as a mystical force. He can afford to antagonize non-Christian voters with his religious rhetoric because the Christian right is his ultimate audience. As long as Bush stays in the good books of this massive voting bloc, his chances for re-election remain favorable.
One way to keep the Christian right happy is to consistently back Israel. Many Christians reflexively support Israel because they were raised on Sunday school stories of a mythical, allegorical nation of Israelites, God?s chosen people. They associate this Biblical narrative with the modern state of Israel and consequently overlook Palestinian aspirations for justice. The more dangerous breed of pro-Israel Christians, however, are those who identify themselves as Christian Zionists. Their narrow reading of the Bible convinces them that the second coming of Jesus is dependent on Jewish control of the Holy Lands. In the words of Jerry Falwell, ?The most dramatic evidence for His imminent return [is] the rebirth of the nation of Israel.? Right wing Israelis are happy for Christian Zionist support even though it rests on a rather anti-Semitic End Times theology: when Jesus steps onstage for his encore, Jews who don?t convert to Christianity will perish.
Bush has not publicly espoused Christian Zionist views, but it is reasonable to expect that his evangelical beliefs translate at the very least into an inflated sympathy for Israel. And even though Bush?s stated position on Israel-Palestine doesn?t jive with Christian Zionists ? they want Palestinians expelled from the region ? they are no doubt pleased with his support for Ariel Sharon. Now, they just need to convince him to fire a few missiles at Jerusalem?s Dome of the Rock. That would facilitate the reconstruction of the Temple and allow us all to sit back and relax while we watch Armageddon unfold and await Christ?s return to earth.
WOLFOWITZ
AS A WIDE-EYED YOUNGSTER, PAUL WOLFOWITZ RECEIVED NUMEROUS lessons from his father on the dangers of totalitarianism. Jack Wolfowitz was a Polish Jew who ensured that his children understood how fortunate they were to escape the fate of relatives who lived under Stalin and Hitler. At the dinner table, Paul concluded early on that America had a moral responsibility to protect the ideals of freedom and democracy. This realization stayed with him after he left home to embark on an intellectual journey that took him to the nation?s finest universities and eventually to Washington. These days, Wolfowitz?s position as the number two man at the Pentagon gives him a special capacity to act on this conviction. And the US invasion of Iraq is largely attributed to his paradoxical insistence that the US can bring peace to the world through war.
The first time Americans went after Saddam Hussein in 1991, Wolfowitz was undersecretary of defense for policy. Iraq was successfully contained in part because of a genuine effort to build consensus among nations, but a year later, Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby proposed an alternate vision. Their infamous ?Defense Planning Guidance? brief called for the US to maintain its position as the world?s lone superpower by convincing ?potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role.? It would address the world?s trouble spots as it saw fit, and remain the dominant outside power in the Middle East in order to preserve US access to the region?s oil. The brief was toned down after it was leaked to the New York Times, but its key points are now enshrined in President Bush?s National Security Strategy, also known as the Bush Doctrine.
As one of Washington?s most prominent neocons, Wolfowitz is seen as an unflinching ideologue, blinded by his conviction that democracy can be imposed on the Middle East by force. He lacks the aversion to war held by most battle-scarred soldiers. Academic deferments kept him out of the Vietnam War, and his entire adult life has been spent in the halls of academia and the US federal bureaucracy. When Washington Post columnist David Ignatius asked Wolfowitz if he ever worried that he was too idealistic and lacked the prudence and pragmatism that normally guide war planners, Wolfowitz didn?t answer directly. He merely noted that it was a good question.
Despite the bumps along the way, Wolfowitz remains confident that the current adventure in Iraq will open the floodgates to a moderate Middle East and reduce the threat of terrorism in the long term. He also appreciates that a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can help that process along. He has articulated support for a future Palestinian state and advocates ?dealing with settlements,? but he also has strong attachments to Israel. He lived there as a teenager, and his sister is married to an Israeli. During the first Gulf War, George Bush Sr. sent him to Israel to convince its leaders not to respond to Iraqi airstrikes. More recently, Bush?s son told Wolfowitz to speak on behalf of the current administration at a massive, pro-Israel rally in Washington, DC. Though Wolfowitz acknowledged Palestinian suffering ? and was showered with boos as a result ? the speech was essentially a reiteration of Israel?s position that the key hurdle to peace in the Middle East is Islamic terrorism. He concluded by proclaiming ?May God bless America, may God bless Israel, and may God bless all the peacemakers of the world.?
DURING THE 1999 IOWA REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY, CANDIDATES were asked which political philosopher had influenced them the most and why. George Bush offered this response: ?Christ, because he changed my heart.? Such assertions are well-received in the churches of America, a country where 40 percent of citizens identify themselves as born-again evangelicals. Bush is one of them. In 1986, following years of heavy drinking and perfunctory church attendance, he saw the light and traded the bottle for the Bible. This newfound zeal fueled the ambition and direction that took him first to the governorship of Texas, and ultimately to the Oval Office. Convinced that he has been called by God to lead the nation, Bush asked prominent pastors to lay their hands on him and pray for the future while he campaigned for president. Now that he?s in the White House, he regularly alludes to Scripture and reads devotionals every morning.
Bush looks to the Bible for policy guidance and prefers intuition to logic. Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer equates Bush?s ethical decision-making process to that of a 13-year-old boy. His Manichean good versus evil perspective of the world does not allow for any shades of gray. It is shaped by right wing preachers who believe Satan exists and who talk about evil as a mystical force. He can afford to antagonize non-Christian voters with his religious rhetoric because the Christian right is his ultimate audience. As long as Bush stays in the good books of this massive voting bloc, his chances for re-election remain favorable.
One way to keep the Christian right happy is to consistently back Israel. Many Christians reflexively support Israel because they were raised on Sunday school stories of a mythical, allegorical nation of Israelites, God?s chosen people. They associate this Biblical narrative with the modern state of Israel and consequently overlook Palestinian aspirations for justice. The more dangerous breed of pro-Israel Christians, however, are those who identify themselves as Christian Zionists. Their narrow reading of the Bible convinces them that the second coming of Jesus is dependent on Jewish control of the Holy Lands. In the words of Jerry Falwell, ?The most dramatic evidence for His imminent return [is] the rebirth of the nation of Israel.? Right wing Israelis are happy for Christian Zionist support even though it rests on a rather anti-Semitic End Times theology: when Jesus steps onstage for his encore, Jews who don?t convert to Christianity will perish.
Bush has not publicly espoused Christian Zionist views, but it is reasonable to expect that his evangelical beliefs translate at the very least into an inflated sympathy for Israel. And even though Bush?s stated position on Israel-Palestine doesn?t jive with Christian Zionists ? they want Palestinians expelled from the region ? they are no doubt pleased with his support for Ariel Sharon. Now, they just need to convince him to fire a few missiles at Jerusalem?s Dome of the Rock. That would facilitate the reconstruction of the Temple and allow us all to sit back and relax while we watch Armageddon unfold and await Christ?s return to earth.
AS A WIDE-EYED YOUNGSTER, PAUL WOLFOWITZ RECEIVED NUMEROUS lessons from his father on the dangers of totalitarianism. Jack Wolfowitz was a Polish Jew who ensured that his children understood how fortunate they were to escape the fate of relatives who lived under Stalin and Hitler. At the dinner table, Paul concluded early on that America had a moral responsibility to protect the ideals of freedom and democracy. This realization stayed with him after he left home to embark on an intellectual journey that took him to the nation?s finest universities and eventually to Washington. These days, Wolfowitz?s position as the number two man at the Pentagon gives him a special capacity to act on this conviction. And the US invasion of Iraq is largely attributed to his paradoxical insistence that the US can bring peace to the world through war.
The first time Americans went after Saddam Hussein in 1991, Wolfowitz was undersecretary of defense for policy. Iraq was successfully contained in part because of a genuine effort to build consensus among nations, but a year later, Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby proposed an alternate vision. Their infamous ?Defense Planning Guidance? brief called for the US to maintain its position as the world?s lone superpower by convincing ?potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role.? It would address the world?s trouble spots as it saw fit, and remain the dominant outside power in the Middle East in order to preserve US access to the region?s oil. The brief was toned down after it was leaked to the New York Times, but its key points are now enshrined in President Bush?s National Security Strategy, also known as the Bush Doctrine.
As one of Washington?s most prominent neocons, Wolfowitz is seen as an unflinching ideologue, blinded by his conviction that democracy can be imposed on the Middle East by force. He lacks the aversion to war held by most battle-scarred soldiers. Academic deferments kept him out of the Vietnam War, and his entire adult life has been spent in the halls of academia and the US federal bureaucracy. When Washington Post columnist David Ignatius asked Wolfowitz if he ever worried that he was too idealistic and lacked the prudence and pragmatism that normally guide war planners, Wolfowitz didn?t answer directly. He merely noted that it was a good question.
Despite the bumps along the way, Wolfowitz remains confident that the current adventure in Iraq will open the floodgates to a moderate Middle East and reduce the threat of terrorism in the long term. He also appreciates that a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can help that process along. He has articulated support for a future Palestinian state and advocates ?dealing with settlements,? but he also has strong attachments to Israel. He lived there as a teenager, and his sister is married to an Israeli. During the first Gulf War, George Bush Sr. sent him to Israel to convince its leaders not to respond to Iraqi airstrikes. More recently, Bush?s son told Wolfowitz to speak on behalf of the current administration at a massive, pro-Israel rally in Washington, DC. Though Wolfowitz acknowledged Palestinian suffering ? and was showered with boos as a result ? the speech was essentially a reiteration of Israel?s position that the key hurdle to peace in the Middle East is Islamic terrorism. He concluded by proclaiming ?May God bless America, may God bless Israel, and may God bless all the peacemakers of the world.?
