It is remarkable just how marginalized George W. Bush has become. We all know the reasons: lame-duck second term, low approval ratings, a Democratic Congress, and, I think, citizen fatigue. We're tired of watching and reading about the train wreck that has been the Bush 43 presidency; it isn't even fun (or useful) to bash him for the scarily declining economy, though I'm guessing history will deal with that.
But with that acknowledged irrelevance has come something else, a loss of the sense of just how malignant these two terms have been. Bush is still the butt of dubiously funny jokes (Letterman, 1/16: The price of milk has gone up 36 percent. Don’t worry. President Bush is already on the problem. He is going to fight the high cost of milk. He is planning to invade Wisconsin.), and there's bound to be some snide comments directed at the cost of his presidential library ($500 million? $200 million? No one seems sure), but the natural reductionism that we apply to the no-longer-important is already setting in. Whatever outrage we feel is blunted by the excitement of the new.
Occasionally, though, it's worth a check back to understand just how thoroughly this administration has corrupted the rule of law, its own words, indeed, the very nature of what this nation means. I'm not going to replow the whole Franken-Moore-Conason oeuvre, but, as I was in the library checking out Peter Singer's One World (reviewed here), I also decided to read his 2004 book, The President of Good & Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush.
One important thing: the Dewey Decimal System can clue you into the content of a book. One World is cataloged in my library as 303.482, which is the topic of Social Change. The President falls under 973.931092, History of the United States, George W. Bush. The first thing you notice is that neither book falls within the 200s, Philosophy. As I pointed out in my review, One World is not a particularly philosophical work; less so is The President, despite its "Ethics" subtitle.
As such, this is not a book with anything particular new to say (whether it would have seemed novel when it came out, I can't recall). That there has been a startling disconnect between Bush's words and actions, or between his actions in one arena and another, is hardly news by now. And the central conceit of the book, that it represents an attempt to take Bush at face value and try to fit his words and deeds into a consistent ethical framework, is almost certainly a falsehood. One World, which came out two years earlier, already expressed discontent with the U.S. under Bush.
That said, there is plenty to recommend in this book if you are looking for a reminder of just how far we've gone awry under Bush - in fact, it's remarkable how much of this holds up as fair criticism four years later. (I have been pondering the creation of a post on how little has gotten done in this country in recent years. Suffice it to say that we are not dealing assertively with the challenges we face, instead getting sidetracked by the relentlessly trivial.)
I won't go through every topic that Singer discusses. He goes into reporter-like detail on the inconsistency of Bush's views: creating opportunity for every American vs. his tax cuts; stem-cell research vs. the death penalty; his expressions of near-libertarianism vs. right-to-die, drug decriminalization, and gay marriage; exaltation of democracy vs. curtailment of Constitutional rights. These, and others, are topics on which Singer hinges his belief that Bush has an inconsistent ethical structure, and it's hard to disagree with most of this. The first 200 (of 225) pages of this book lay out the case quite well.
The questions this book brings to a reader's mind are perhaps more significant than those the book actually addresses.
When Bush and his staff speak and act as if the United States has some special significance, endowed by God, which allows it to flout international conventions and the decisions of the United Nations, is this arrogance somehow analogous to the national arrogance which allows us to believe that we will always be #1, just by existing, and are they both further analogous to the religiosity that is so endemic to our society, and few others in the West?
Are good and evil absolute, or is that a matter of context, and who is qualified to judge who is good, and to what extent?
How does Bush's morality (not having sex with interns) square with his actions; moreover, is it possible for anyone in that kind of job to remain in tones of black and white?
Some of these are touched upon by Singer, but he doesn't dig too deeply into any of them. What he does do in the last chapter is try to explain Bush, and this is the weakest part of the book. He discussed whether Bush's ethics fit into the context of individual rights, utilitarianism, or Christian, and concludes, unsurprisingly, that fit into none of these.
There are a couple of glaring misreadings in this section. For an avowed utilitarian as Singer to conclude that Bush is not one requires more evidence than "many utilitarians would disagree" or "Bush firmly rejects utilitarian ethics." One criticism of utilitarianism is that it gives too much leeway to the individual to decide long-term costs and benefits. I have little doubt that Bush feels that every decision he has made is "better" than the alternative and, thus, would see himself as a utilitarian.
In the discussion of Bush as a Christian, Singer tries to show that, for example, Bush's opposition to stem-cell research can't possibly be based in the Bible because, "the idea that a viable embryo could survive outside the human body...was beyond the comprehension of the Bible's authors." But if you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and that God is omniscient, then you have to find something within the Bible that supports taking some kind of stand on the issue. I may not feel that's a valid way of looking at it, but you can't discuss it without acknowledging that others do.
There follows a discussion of whether Bush is honest, considers the cynical view that his positions are all the result of political positioning, and offers speculation as to where this might have come from (Singer points to the usual suspect in these matters, philosopher Leo Strauss). Given what's come before, this part is largely unnecessary, we're already convinced of Bush's failures.
To summarize, then, this is a non-philosophical book written by a philosopher which promises certain things that it doesn't deliver. That doesn't make the book a failure, it just makes it a bit disappointing. The promised depth just isn't there, so I couldn't tell you that you wouldn't be better off reading, say, Molly Ivins if you want insight into Bush with a bit more entertainment value.
But with that acknowledged irrelevance has come something else, a loss of the sense of just how malignant these two terms have been. Bush is still the butt of dubiously funny jokes (Letterman, 1/16: The price of milk has gone up 36 percent. Don’t worry. President Bush is already on the problem. He is going to fight the high cost of milk. He is planning to invade Wisconsin.), and there's bound to be some snide comments directed at the cost of his presidential library ($500 million? $200 million? No one seems sure), but the natural reductionism that we apply to the no-longer-important is already setting in. Whatever outrage we feel is blunted by the excitement of the new.
Occasionally, though, it's worth a check back to understand just how thoroughly this administration has corrupted the rule of law, its own words, indeed, the very nature of what this nation means. I'm not going to replow the whole Franken-Moore-Conason oeuvre, but, as I was in the library checking out Peter Singer's One World (reviewed here), I also decided to read his 2004 book, The President of Good & Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush.
One important thing: the Dewey Decimal System can clue you into the content of a book. One World is cataloged in my library as 303.482, which is the topic of Social Change. The President falls under 973.931092, History of the United States, George W. Bush. The first thing you notice is that neither book falls within the 200s, Philosophy. As I pointed out in my review, One World is not a particularly philosophical work; less so is The President, despite its "Ethics" subtitle.
As such, this is not a book with anything particular new to say (whether it would have seemed novel when it came out, I can't recall). That there has been a startling disconnect between Bush's words and actions, or between his actions in one arena and another, is hardly news by now. And the central conceit of the book, that it represents an attempt to take Bush at face value and try to fit his words and deeds into a consistent ethical framework, is almost certainly a falsehood. One World, which came out two years earlier, already expressed discontent with the U.S. under Bush.
That said, there is plenty to recommend in this book if you are looking for a reminder of just how far we've gone awry under Bush - in fact, it's remarkable how much of this holds up as fair criticism four years later. (I have been pondering the creation of a post on how little has gotten done in this country in recent years. Suffice it to say that we are not dealing assertively with the challenges we face, instead getting sidetracked by the relentlessly trivial.)
I won't go through every topic that Singer discusses. He goes into reporter-like detail on the inconsistency of Bush's views: creating opportunity for every American vs. his tax cuts; stem-cell research vs. the death penalty; his expressions of near-libertarianism vs. right-to-die, drug decriminalization, and gay marriage; exaltation of democracy vs. curtailment of Constitutional rights. These, and others, are topics on which Singer hinges his belief that Bush has an inconsistent ethical structure, and it's hard to disagree with most of this. The first 200 (of 225) pages of this book lay out the case quite well.
The questions this book brings to a reader's mind are perhaps more significant than those the book actually addresses.
When Bush and his staff speak and act as if the United States has some special significance, endowed by God, which allows it to flout international conventions and the decisions of the United Nations, is this arrogance somehow analogous to the national arrogance which allows us to believe that we will always be #1, just by existing, and are they both further analogous to the religiosity that is so endemic to our society, and few others in the West?
Are good and evil absolute, or is that a matter of context, and who is qualified to judge who is good, and to what extent?
How does Bush's morality (not having sex with interns) square with his actions; moreover, is it possible for anyone in that kind of job to remain in tones of black and white?
Some of these are touched upon by Singer, but he doesn't dig too deeply into any of them. What he does do in the last chapter is try to explain Bush, and this is the weakest part of the book. He discussed whether Bush's ethics fit into the context of individual rights, utilitarianism, or Christian, and concludes, unsurprisingly, that fit into none of these.
There are a couple of glaring misreadings in this section. For an avowed utilitarian as Singer to conclude that Bush is not one requires more evidence than "many utilitarians would disagree" or "Bush firmly rejects utilitarian ethics." One criticism of utilitarianism is that it gives too much leeway to the individual to decide long-term costs and benefits. I have little doubt that Bush feels that every decision he has made is "better" than the alternative and, thus, would see himself as a utilitarian.
In the discussion of Bush as a Christian, Singer tries to show that, for example, Bush's opposition to stem-cell research can't possibly be based in the Bible because, "the idea that a viable embryo could survive outside the human body...was beyond the comprehension of the Bible's authors." But if you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and that God is omniscient, then you have to find something within the Bible that supports taking some kind of stand on the issue. I may not feel that's a valid way of looking at it, but you can't discuss it without acknowledging that others do.
There follows a discussion of whether Bush is honest, considers the cynical view that his positions are all the result of political positioning, and offers speculation as to where this might have come from (Singer points to the usual suspect in these matters, philosopher Leo Strauss). Given what's come before, this part is largely unnecessary, we're already convinced of Bush's failures.
To summarize, then, this is a non-philosophical book written by a philosopher which promises certain things that it doesn't deliver. That doesn't make the book a failure, it just makes it a bit disappointing. The promised depth just isn't there, so I couldn't tell you that you wouldn't be better off reading, say, Molly Ivins if you want insight into Bush with a bit more entertainment value.
No comments:
Post a Comment