Christianity QA

Question:

 The New York Times October 17, 2004 IN THE MAGAZINE Without a Doubt By RON SUSKIND Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ”if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.” The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion. ”Just in the past few months,” Bartlett said, ”I think a light has gone off for people who’ve spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he’s always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.” Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush’s governance, went on to say: ”This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can’t be persuaded, that they’re extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he’s just like them. . . . ”This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,” Bartlett went on to say. ”He truly believes he’s on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.” Bartlett paused, then said, ”But you can’t run the world on faith.” Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ”I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,” he began, ”and I was telling the president of my many concerns” — concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. ”’Mr. President,’ I finally said, ‘How can you be so sure when you know you don’t know the facts?”’ Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator’s shoulder. ”My instincts,” he said. ”My instincts.” Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ”I said, ‘Mr. President, your instincts aren’t good enough!”’ The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying to make sense of the same thing — a president who has been an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability, opacity and action. But lately, words and deeds are beginning to connect. The Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush’s top deputies — from cabinet members like Paul O’Neill, Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals fighting in Iraq — have been told for years when they requested explanations for many of the president’s decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with accepted facts. The president would say that he relied on his ”gut” or his ”instinct” to guide the ship of state, and then he ”prayed over it.” The old pro Bartlett, a deliberative, fact- based wonk, is finally hearing a tune that has been hummed quietly by evangelicals (so as not to trouble the secular) for years as they gazed upon President George W. Bush. This evangelical group — the core of the energetic ”base” that may well usher Bush to victory — believes that their leader is a messenger from God. And in the first presidential debate, many Americans heard the discursive John Kerry succinctly raise, for the first time, the issue of Bush’s certainty — the issue being, as Kerry put it, that ”you can be certain and be wrong.” What underlies Bush’s certainty? And can it be assessed in the temporal realm of informed consent? All of this — the ”gut” and ”instincts,” the certainty and religiosity -connects to a single word, ”faith,” and faith asserts its hold ever more on debates in this country and abroad. That a deep Christian faith illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound, nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision — often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position — he expects complete faith in its rightness. The disdainful smirks and grimaces that many viewers were surprised to see in the first presidential debate are familiar expressions to those in the administration or in Congress who have simply asked the president to explain his positions. Since 9/11, those requests have grown scarce; Bush’s intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased, and few dare to question him now. A writ of infallibility — a premise beneath the powerful Bushian certainty that has, in many ways, moved mountains — is not just for public consumption: it has guided the inner life of the White House. As Whitman told me on the day in May 2003 that she announced her resignation as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: ”In meetings, I’d ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I was accused of disloyalty!” (Whitman, whose faith in Bush has since been renewed, denies making these remarks and is now a leader of the president’s re-election effort in New Jersey.) The nation’s founders, smarting still from the punitive pieties of Europe’s state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago. George W. Bush — both captive and creator of this moment — has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith- based presidency. The faith-based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret. The dome of silence cracked a bit in the late winter and spring, with revelations from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and also, in my book, from the former Bush treasury secretary Paul O’Neill. When I quoted O’Neill saying that Bush was like ”a blind man in a room full of deaf people,” this did not endear me to the White House. But my phone did begin to ring, with Democrats and Republicans calling with similar impressions and anecdotes about Bush’s faith and certainty. These are among the sources I relied upon for this article. Few were willing to talk on the record. Some were willing to talk because they said they thought George W. Bush might lose; others, out of fear of what might transpire if he wins. In either case, there seems to be a growing silence fatigue — public servants, some with vast experience, who feel they have spent years being treated like Victorian-era children, seen but not heard, and are tired of it. But silence still reigns in the highest reaches of the White House. After many requests, Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said in a letter that the president and those around him would not be cooperating with this article in any way. Some officials, elected or otherwise, with whom I have spoken with left meetings in the Oval Office concerned that the president was struggling with the demands of the job. Others focused on Bush’s substantial interpersonal gifts as a compensation for his perceived lack of broader capabilities. Still others, like Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, are worried about something other than his native intelligence. ”He’s plenty smart enough to do the job,” Levin said. ”It’s his lack of curiosity about complex issues which troubles me.” But more than anything else, I heard expressions of awe at the president’s preternatural certainty and wonderment about its source. There is one story about Bush’s particular brand of certainty I am able to piece together and tell for the record. In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ”road map” for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman — the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress — mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well- trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall. ”I don’t know why you’re talking about Sweden,” Bush said. ”They’re the neutral one. They don’t have an army.” Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ”Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They’re the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.” Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion. Bush held to his view. ”No, no, it’s Sweden that has no army.” The room went silent, until someone changed the subject. A few weeks … read more »

Response:

newmediapr…@yahoo.com (KC Carter) wrote in message <news:463ac52.0410232255.3c88955f@posting.google.com>…

Thanks bud, speaking of strange environments I went against lm’s best wishes and am now in Indonesia.  Nothing dangerous so far, but those TOTES let me tell you, damn those totes, pesky pesky totes.  They wanna charge me 5 times the price of a regular taxi fare?  I’ll tell you what Mr. Totey tote tote, you can take your taxi and shove it, I’m walking. So I do that, and as I walk, I’m accosted all the way by, at last count, over 200 totes!!!  Granted, it was more than a 3km walk, but the whole time I’ve never seen anything like this before.  200 and they all want to offer me taxi rides at rip-off rates.  Unbelievable! So that makes me walk all the more. Anyways, onto the post: > And I think that Bush’s life has been very sheltered, in a sense, in > that he has "achieved" so much in his life without really achieving > it: Yale, multiple oil services companies funded by Saudis, MLB owner, > governor, and now president. These were bought by other peoples’ money > and influence, not his own efforts. So you can topple a statue in > Baghdad and really believe "Mission Accomplished," because that’s how > his life has been lived.

Yes, positions have more or less ‘come up’ for Bush.  He worked fairly hard once he got into various positions, but he more or less took them for granted, and that something would always be provided for him.  So he worked hard, but didn’t take full initiative and assume full responsibility for the various positions.  This was evident when he dropped out of the board of directors role (referenced in the article) because he "wanted out of this business" or something to that effect. Even now as president he relies heavily on his speechwriter, and his debates with Kerry showed a mediocre display of initiative to say the least. I suppose you could say Bush is a "home-body" or whichever term you want to describe a person who likes to stay in one place and is attached to a particular area, i.e. his beloved Texas Ranch.  That’s where he spends an incredible amount of time, but he’s completed surrounded by other people there so he has little, if any, time alone.  Time alone is necessary for relection, contemplation, and much-needed personal initiative, all of which Bush has a pretty low regard for as the article says directly. > They don’t read newspapers or intelligence reports, they must be > reading something, right?

Let’s hope so, but I seriously doubt it!  He made a claim way back that he doesn’t have a single book in his Texas ranch or something like that. Steve

Response:

strue…@hotmail.com (Steve Ruelle) wrote in message <news:735ec89b.0410230434.37de1bfd@posting.google.com>… > That waw an ASTOUNDINGLY well-researched and pointing article, the > best and most objective critical commentary on President Bush that > I’ve ever come across.  

Or, as Bush supporters would call it, liberal propaganda. ;0 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The author, Ron Suskind, has examined sources > from every angle and has really hit the nail on the head here.  So in > a very ironic way, I place a lot of confidence in this research, but > the research was founded on skepticism, that is a need to question the > existing realities of the Bush Administration and the problems it > creates. > Perhaps this paragraph is the heart of the article, and the central > problem of the Bush presidency itself.  Bush never said this directly, > but his aide clearly outlined the philosophical paradigm that drives > the actions of the President: > > The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based > > community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge > > from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured > > something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. > > ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. > > ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And > > while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act > > again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s > > how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, > > will be left to just study what we do.” > What’s going on here?  Well, quite simply, this kind of talk comes > from a person who is playing God.  Bush himself may be a messenger of > God like he claims, but his actions indicate otherwise.  *He* is the > one taking on the creator role (which would constitute blasphemy in > religious terms), and has an aide who talks directly about doing > exactly that. > Moving on to a different paragraph we see the second philosophical > problem that emerges, which is really a corollary to the above: > > George W. Bush, clearly, is one of history’s great confidence men. That is > > not meant in the huckster’s sense, though many critics claim that on the > > war in Iraq, the economy and a few other matters he has engaged in some > > manner of bait-and-switch. No, I mean it in the sense that he’s a believer > > in the power of confidence. At a time when constituents are uneasy and > > enemies are probing for weaknesses, he clearly feels that unflinching > > confidence has an almost mystical power. It can all but create reality. > Bush talks a lot about faith, but it almost seems like he worships > faith itself rather than the God who creates faith in the first place. >  This can be quite dangerous actually, because faith in faith alone > leads to the belief that you can create your own realities (as we see > in the above problem).  This is dangerous because it’s just like the > thinking of a dictator, that you don’t have to answer to anyone of > account for the consequences of your actions.  Bush has these abundant > qualities in his leadership and, quite simply, it is frightening. > It’s also accurate to note that he didn’t use to be this way, as can > be seen in his conversations with the minister who runs the > progressive Sojouners organization.  But time spent in the saddles of > power compounded by the events and reactions to 9/11 have hardened > Bush into the person he is now.  That off-cited phrase is correct > here, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." > This is an extremely significant point for me personally, because in > my late teens / early 20’s I had the same belief:  that if only I had > self-confidence, then my life would be complete.  So the next 3 years > or so, I aggressively pursued exactly that, and did all kinds of > complex and challenging personal growth projects to overcome shyness > and get the self-confidence I desired so much.  Details and write-ups > of these are no doubt still archived on this board. > The result of all this personal growth did succeed, and succeed very > well.  In the end I got the the confidence I wanted, but I still found > that something was missing. > I’m sure it was psychologist Adler that pointed it out, and to > paraphrase him, the drive to attain confidence for confidence’s sake > is a cover-up for inferiority.  The last 3 years of my life spent > overseas in Asian countries (mostly China) have really cut to the core > of deep-seated wounds in my own life that my previous confidence > projects didn’t address.  They may have acknowledged those wounds > and/or bandaged them, but didn’t really heal completely. > It may suck, but this is reality:  to properly heal wounds, you have > to first make incisions that hurt.  That’s where I am right now, in > the point where in my own development, experiences in overseas > cultures have helped uncover the wounds and begin to make incisions. > Yes, it hurts very much, but this is the only way to bring healing.

And I think that Bush’s life has been very sheltered, in a sense, in that he has "achieved" so much in his life without really achieving it: Yale, multiple oil services companies funded by Saudis, MLB owner, governor, and now president. These were bought by other peoples’ money and influence, not his own efforts. So you can topple a statue in Baghdad and really believe "Mission Accomplished," because that’s how his life has been lived. And you Steve, you’ve worked very hard at different things, you admit mistakes, you learn and grow from them, you put yourself in strange environments… all important parts of maturity. > So in the end, when a person like Bush talks about confidence like he > does, the issue at hand is pretty simple:  He has some pretty nasty > wounds and weaknesses in his own life that must be addressed. > Whether or not he will sit in the White House next term is what the > election will decide, but for his own personal life, he really should > think about what his ‘born again’ experience really means and start > dealing with these issues that he buries with the confidence claptrap. > And the chances of Bush or his assosciates actually reading this are > next to nil, but one can hope > Steve

They don’t read newspapers or intelligence reports, they must be reading something, right? KC

Response:

"Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent" <zombiefreaksfromhellbo…@bushwhacked.org> wrote in message <news:Xns958A38B8811BAfkjdlkvjcxoiuarepoij@68.6.19.6>… > The New York Times > October 17, 2004 > IN THE MAGAZINE > Without a Doubt > By RON SUSKIND > And for those who don’t get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by > Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his > own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. > ”You think he’s an idiot, don’t you?” I said, no, I didn’t. ”No, you do, > all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in > southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don’t care. > You see, you’re outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of > America,

And that’s why Gore won the popular vote, right?

Response:

Oddly, I can’t feel scared anymore, just utterly underwhelmed by the mediocrity of affairs in the world these days. OTS "Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent" <zombiefreaksfromhellbo…@bushwhacked.org> wrote in message news:Xns958A38B8811BAfkjdlkvjcxoiuarepoij@68.6.19.6… <snipped ’cause I seen it already> — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.781 / Virus Database: 527 – Release Date: 22/10/2004

Response:

That waw an ASTOUNDINGLY well-researched and pointing article, the best and most objective critical commentary on President Bush that I’ve ever come across.  The author, Ron Suskind, has examined sources from every angle and has really hit the nail on the head here.  So in a very ironic way, I place a lot of confidence in this research, but the research was founded on skepticism, that is a need to question the existing realities of the Bush Administration and the problems it creates. Perhaps this paragraph is the heart of the article, and the central problem of the Bush presidency itself.  Bush never said this directly, but his aide clearly outlined the philosophical paradigm that drives the actions of the President: > The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based > community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge > from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured > something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. > ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. > ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And > while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act > again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s > how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, > will be left to just study what we do.”

What’s going on here?  Well, quite simply, this kind of talk comes from a person who is playing God.  Bush himself may be a messenger of God like he claims, but his actions indicate otherwise.  *He* is the one taking on the creator role (which would constitute blasphemy in religious terms), and has an aide who talks directly about doing exactly that. Moving on to a different paragraph we see the second philosophical problem that emerges, which is really a corollary to the above: > George W. Bush, clearly, is one of history’s great confidence men. That is > not meant in the huckster’s sense, though many critics claim that on the > war in Iraq, the economy and a few other matters he has engaged in some > manner of bait-and-switch. No, I mean it in the sense that he’s a believer > in the power of confidence. At a time when constituents are uneasy and > enemies are probing for weaknesses, he clearly feels that unflinching > confidence has an almost mystical power. It can all but create reality.

Bush talks a lot about faith, but it almost seems like he worships faith itself rather than the God who creates faith in the first place.  This can be quite dangerous actually, because faith in faith alone leads to the belief that you can create your own realities (as we see in the above problem).  This is dangerous because it’s just like the thinking of a dictator, that you don’t have to answer to anyone of account for the consequences of your actions.  Bush has these abundant qualities in his leadership and, quite simply, it is frightening. It’s also accurate to note that he didn’t use to be this way, as can be seen in his conversations with the minister who runs the progressive Sojouners organization.  But time spent in the saddles of power compounded by the events and reactions to 9/11 have hardened Bush into the person he is now.  That off-cited phrase is correct here, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is an extremely significant point for me personally, because in my late teens / early 20’s I had the same belief:  that if only I had self-confidence, then my life would be complete.  So the next 3 years or so, I aggressively pursued exactly that, and did all kinds of complex and challenging personal growth projects to overcome shyness and get the self-confidence I desired so much.  Details and write-ups of these are no doubt still archived on this board. The result of all this personal growth did succeed, and succeed very well.  In the end I got the the confidence I wanted, but I still found that something was missing. I’m sure it was psychologist Adler that pointed it out, and to paraphrase him, the drive to attain confidence for confidence’s sake is a cover-up for inferiority.  The last 3 years of my life spent overseas in Asian countries (mostly China) have really cut to the core of deep-seated wounds in my own life that my previous confidence projects didn’t address.  They may have acknowledged those wounds and/or bandaged them, but didn’t really heal completely. It may suck, but this is reality:  to properly heal wounds, you have to first make incisions that hurt.  That’s where I am right now, in the point where in my own development, experiences in overseas cultures have helped uncover the wounds and begin to make incisions. Yes, it hurts very much, but this is the only way to bring healing. So in the end, when a person like Bush talks about confidence like he does, the issue at hand is pretty simple:  He has some pretty nasty wounds and weaknesses in his own life that must be addressed. Whether or not he will sit in the White House next term is what the election will decide, but for his own personal life, he really should think about what his ‘born again’ experience really means and start dealing with these issues that he buries with the confidence claptrap. And the chances of Bush or his assosciates actually reading this are next to nil, but one can hope Steve

Response:

Related Posts