George Bush uses the Christian faith and its symbols to work miracles for winning political battles.
First Published: 3 May 2004
by Mark Biskeborn
While talking with my acquaintances at a local church, I realized many people probably voted for G.W. Bush simply because he talked about God. In this regard, Bush has become a master of modern politics, so let’s give him credit for that.
But then, alas, the questions came to me. Does the local church reflect the nation’s way of thinking? Is a man who talks of God necessarily a follower of Christ’s teachings? Does God-talk make a man more moral?
By reviewing history, I recalled how Machiavelli set down one of the most explicit doctrines for modern politics while advising a sixteenth-century prince, counseling him to do whatever was practical for the sake of power, and that it was highly effective to use moral principles and especially religion to achieve success. Today’s politician often operates on Machiavelli’s counsel by appealing to the general public’s feelings about ethics as a rhetorical means to obtain popular support.
Machiavelli also advised the use of fear as a means to establish power, believing that a man’s flexibility in morality and religion enables him to gain political success as fortune (social attitudes) changes over time. “Thus, it is not necessary for a prince to have all the above-mentioned virtues in fact, but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them.”
"The Bush Tapes" and Machiavelli
G.W. Bush seems to follow Machiavelli’s advice, although, as revealed in the “Bush Tapes,” during his personal struggle against drugs and alcohol, he made a deeply personal and sincere conversion to religious faith. It just so happens that his conversion also plays an opportune role in his political rhetoric.
Bush has found that the use of popular Christian faith and symbols works miracles to gain public support for his policies. Indeed, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in 2000, 15 million evangelical Protestants voted with 23 percent of the electorate, and 71 percent of them voted for Bush.
In 2004, Protestants again accounted for about 23 percent of the electorate. But overall turnout was much higher, and 78 percent of the evangelicals who voted, voted for Bush. That represents roughly 3.5 million extra votes for him. Bush's total vote rose by 9 million, so evangelical Protestants alone accounted for more than a third of his increased vote.
The recent release of the “Bush Tapes” reveals Bush as less driven by his religious beliefs than many people might have previously assumed. In the tapes, he refers to religious images as the right buttons to push when looking for public support. While preparing to meet Christian leaders in 1998, Bush said: "There are some code words. There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways. I am going to say that I've accepted Christ into my life.” (New York Times, 19 Feb. 05)
Bush and God
Bush referred to God 10 times in his first inaugural in 2000, including this claim: “I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal, in His image.” In his three State of the Union addresses since, Bush invoked God another 14 times.
No other president has used God so often in his State of the Unions or inaugurations. The closest to Bush’s average of six references to God in each of his addresses is Ronald Reagan with an average 4 in his comparable speeches. Jimmy Carter, considered one of the most pious of presidents, mentioned God only twice in four addresses. Further back in history, others to talk of God were Franklin Roosevelt at 1.5 and Johnson at 1.5 per inaugurals and State of the Unions.
These former presidents spoke as humble petitioners asking for divine guidance, unlike Bush’s claim in 2003 that “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.” Unlike his predecessors, Bush declares some divine understanding of God’s intensions. Is this prophecy? If not prophecy, at least it can make people feel like they are closer to God because they happen to live in a particular country. People like to hear this and feel good about themselves.
This change in White House rhetoric is apparent in how presidents have spoken about God and the values of freedom and liberty, two ideas central to American identity that strum the emotional heartstrings of folks in the heartlands.
Do Bush's Policies Reflect Christian Principles?
Bush uses Christian references as an effective means to sway the American public to his policies. At a White House press conference, Bush responded to questions: “Freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman…we have been called to do…” As a demagogue, Bush uses the cultural trend of increasing religious fervor in America, perhaps a reaction to Islamic movements, as a means to garner middle class popularity for his bold policies which often do not serve middle-class interests. Indeed, many of his policies seem to ignore the basic ethical principles Christ taught. His reduction in inheritance tax for huge fortunes only continues the trend to concentrate the distribution of wealth back to the rich. This does not spread opportunity democratically down to the middle classes. On the contrary, it intensifies the concentration of wealth among the rich. Didn’t Christ teach charity repeatedly?
Or, for example, his international free-trade agreements reduce production costs for the wealthy ownership class while they pit the working poor of third-world countries against American middle-class workers. Didn’t Christ teach justice and fairness repeatedly? Do these policies reflect the ethical principles that Christ taught such as charity and justice? Since Bush makes more references to Christian faith than any of his modern predecessors at least since the last century, should we expect him to apply Christian moral principles? Bush’s Christian talk does not seem to reflect his policies. One conclusion we might draw here is that many Americans vote not based on political policies, but on how uplifting the candidate makes them feel.
Justifying the Invasion of Iraq
To his credit, Bush does occasionally use other, non-religious reasons for his policies, such as for invading Iraq. Eventually, he came to use genocide and violations of international law and of human rights as justifications. Yet, if Bush did seriously place any priority on these criteria, he would take action in countries where these problems are rampant such as in China, Sudan, or Rwanda among others. He has done nothing in any such countries.
Despite Bush’s references to some greater prophetic Christian calling, he does focus his attention on Iraq, and not on Sudan, China, or any other tyrannical regime, because his priority does not lie with moral principles, but rather with the goal to re-establish Iraq as the U.S. client state it once was because of its rich petroleum reserves, 15 percent of the world supplies. This preemptive war in Iraq aims at benefiting America’s political and economic interests. Although since the American occupation of Iraq, terrorism arose and now flourishes there at the cost so far of over 1,700 U.S. soldiers’ lives and more than $300 billion in our taxes. However, instead of telling the crass truth about the oil motives to occupy Iraq, however acceptable they may or may not be, Bush chose a more effective approach. He eventually came to use God as a justification.
For the preemptive invasion of Iraq, Bush has given us many justifications. He seemed to be groping and grasping for the right buttons to push that would garner public support. First, he told us he wanted to control the WMD’s, but nobody found any before or after the invasion. Bush also claimed he wanted to bring justice to terrorists, but then evidence proved that Saddam Hussein and his regime were secular enemies to the likes of Al Qaeda. In fact, Osama bin Laden pleaded with Saudi Royalty to invade Iraq in place of the U.S. military. Bush said he wanted to capture the evil tyrant, but then many Iraqi insurgents continue to fight against the occupation. Finally, Bush told us it’s America’s calling by God to spread freedom and democracy.
Was Bush groping for a believable justification in order to gain support for his war? If so, doesn’t this mean he takes lessons from Machiavelli?
He represents an ideology that mixes his own peculiar understanding of Christian ethics with capitalist goals where church, state and commerce intermix. Capitalist goals such as amassing wealth for the few and supporting the interests of large corporations somehow represent for Bush a Christian ethic and way of life. Many of the large corporations that benefit from invading and then rebuilding Iraq, the war contractors, such as Carlyle Group, Vought Aircraft, Halliburton and others, contribute to the campaign coffers that got him elected, not to mention that the families of Bush and of some of his cabinet members own large portions of stock in them.
Contrary to Bush’s Christian rhetoric, Saint Paul and other founding fathers of Christianity, including Christ himself, were pacifists. Tertuallian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria agreed that a Christian could not be a soldier. This ethical view changed only after 312 A.D. when the Roman Emperor, Constantine, chose to become baptized, and did so partly in order to unify an otherwise crumbling empire. At that time, Christian thinkers like Saint Augustine began to develop the notion of a ‘just war’ in the name of God.
Christianity became part of mainstream culture and power structure. Christianity and political ideology were merged at this time of empire building and maintenance. This revised version of Christian ethics made solid political sense at the time because without allowing for war,
Christianity would have taken a very different path in history. But this revision of Christian ethics runs clearly against the teachings of Christ and Paul. Didn’t Christ go to the cross, along with thousands of other Jews, because the ruling Pharisees at the time were expecting a political, even militant king as opposed to the ‘Prince of Peace’ while under Roman oppression?
Christianity as a Marketing Tool
Bush uses Christian talk and symbols to build support for his political position. In a word, he does what professional marketers do; he leverages the current cultural ethos to gain popular support, as Machiavelli advised centuries ago. Bush does, after all have an MBA and he probably did attend his marketing classes. In this regard, he has become a master of modern politics. As Bush exploits Christianity as a means to spread capitalist interests, the resulting ideology appears as a perverse blasphemy of the original Christian ethics taught by Christ.
Bush works from a peculiar revision of Christian ethics to create a new form of capitalist fundamentalism not completely unlike Islamic fundamentalists, such as sects like Wahhabi. In so doing Bush stands Christ’s ethical teachings in its head. Corporate profits, industrial petroleum requirements, and the concentration of wealth seem to be some of the values that motivate Bush in many of his policies, not the prevention of human rights violations, tyranny, or genocide which arise daily in the world and to which Bush’s administration remains mostly oblivious.
Bush has gone to unusual efforts to accommodate the ruling elite in the Middle East, such as the Royal family of Saud, many of which are members of the Islamic fundamentalism and some of whom contribute to other fundamentalist groups such as Al Qaeda.
Peace, charity, justice, equality, generosity are all moral principles Christ taught repeatedly through sermons, parables, and plain talk. Bush’s policies do not clearly reflect these principles despite his Christian talk. Industry and military run on oil. The Bush administration’s actions indicate that, at least for them, economic interests outweigh Christian ethics or the ideals of democracy and human rights, despite all the clever use of Christian talk.
Mark Biskeborn is a writer. You can email him mark@markbiskeborn.com
No comments:
Post a Comment