Wednesday, April 21, 2004
The God Thing and the Middle East
One thing that has been made even more clear by the publication of Bob Woodward's new book Plan of Attack is George W. Bush's almost messianic sense of destiny.
Lest the criticism start too soon, I will again confirm for the record that I believe in God and personally practice religion, as do, according to poll after poll, most Americans . Which I believe is what makes criticism of Bush's beliefs hard for many. Most Americans are clearly comfortable with some role for religion in the public and political arena, First Amendment be damned.
Many see the rise of court-enforced secularism in the modern era (as opposed to the government-endorsed Christianity of earlier generations) as causing the erosion of our values and culture. Thus, the idea that Bush actually believes he's taking his marching orders from God, as Woodward clearly revealed, has a broad surface appeal to many Americans.
But there are grave problems about his approach that trouble many of us as well. It is clearly one thing to be driven by your own personal values and belief system. It is wholly another to believe that you are a unique instrument of God's will. Numerous accounts from this White House have indicated that W. is possessed of the latter notion.
The problem is one of unshakable clarity of purpose and righteousness of action. Again, on the surface these traits are admirable, but taken to an extreme almost invariably lead to downfall and destruction. That is the fear of a growing number of religious and secular moderates, even those from the GOP who have until now supported TeamBush.
Seen through this prism, potentially confusing and contradictory policy decisions become clear. As he was widely reported to have told former Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Abbas, "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
Clearly, election season has come, and Ariel Sharon was just tossed the biggest bone of his lengthy, and sordid, military/political career when Bush endorsed his unilateral plans for Gaza and the West Bank, plans opposed by the EU, UN, and virtually all Arabs and Palestinians.
Despite spin to the contrary coming out of the White House, this endorsement is a radical departure from all previous administrations and even earlier positions of TeamBush. For the few overtly pro-US rulers of the region, such as King Abdullah of Jordan, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Abdullah abruptly cancelled his planned trip to visit Bush in DC. President (for Life) of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak told French paper Le Monde, "(T)oday there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region. . . At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it."
So why would a president lead his nation down that path. Foreign affairs commentator Trudy Rubin wondered, "why, with the Iraq policy in trouble, (would) the President unravel the remains of his Mideast peace policy, and set the Arab world further on edge?" She puckishly offered, and then quickly withdrew this theory: "One obvious answer is presidential politics. Bush's endorsement of Sharon will play well among his core supporters on the Christian right (many of whom hope Israel will soon be the scene of the final battle of Armageddon). The Bush endorsement may also corral some key Jewish votes in Florida."
It is her parenthetical explanation that worries many. This is explored in detail by the Guardian's George Monbiot, who is among many people worldwide who are now starting to believe that US Christian Fundamentalists are Driving Bush's Middle East Policy.
Indeed, pride goeth before a fall, and so does self-righteousness. But if Monbiot's commentary about such decsions being made with 'end times' armageddon in mind is accurate, then that destruction is not only unavoidable, but in fact the glorious and long-awaited, albeit fire-consumed, outcome of mankind on the planet.
As potential voters consider pulling the GOP lever in November, they'll have to decide if they want a policy apparatus more in line with Tim LaHaye than Henry Kissinger.
As for me, I'm just waiting for an answer to the prophetic bumpersticker: "In case of Rapture, Can I have your Car?"
One thing that has been made even more clear by the publication of Bob Woodward's new book Plan of Attack is George W. Bush's almost messianic sense of destiny.
Lest the criticism start too soon, I will again confirm for the record that I believe in God and personally practice religion, as do, according to poll after poll, most Americans . Which I believe is what makes criticism of Bush's beliefs hard for many. Most Americans are clearly comfortable with some role for religion in the public and political arena, First Amendment be damned.
Many see the rise of court-enforced secularism in the modern era (as opposed to the government-endorsed Christianity of earlier generations) as causing the erosion of our values and culture. Thus, the idea that Bush actually believes he's taking his marching orders from God, as Woodward clearly revealed, has a broad surface appeal to many Americans.
But there are grave problems about his approach that trouble many of us as well. It is clearly one thing to be driven by your own personal values and belief system. It is wholly another to believe that you are a unique instrument of God's will. Numerous accounts from this White House have indicated that W. is possessed of the latter notion.
The problem is one of unshakable clarity of purpose and righteousness of action. Again, on the surface these traits are admirable, but taken to an extreme almost invariably lead to downfall and destruction. That is the fear of a growing number of religious and secular moderates, even those from the GOP who have until now supported TeamBush.
Seen through this prism, potentially confusing and contradictory policy decisions become clear. As he was widely reported to have told former Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Abbas, "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
Clearly, election season has come, and Ariel Sharon was just tossed the biggest bone of his lengthy, and sordid, military/political career when Bush endorsed his unilateral plans for Gaza and the West Bank, plans opposed by the EU, UN, and virtually all Arabs and Palestinians.
Despite spin to the contrary coming out of the White House, this endorsement is a radical departure from all previous administrations and even earlier positions of TeamBush. For the few overtly pro-US rulers of the region, such as King Abdullah of Jordan, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Abdullah abruptly cancelled his planned trip to visit Bush in DC. President (for Life) of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak told French paper Le Monde, "(T)oday there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region. . . At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it."
So why would a president lead his nation down that path. Foreign affairs commentator Trudy Rubin wondered, "why, with the Iraq policy in trouble, (would) the President unravel the remains of his Mideast peace policy, and set the Arab world further on edge?" She puckishly offered, and then quickly withdrew this theory: "One obvious answer is presidential politics. Bush's endorsement of Sharon will play well among his core supporters on the Christian right (many of whom hope Israel will soon be the scene of the final battle of Armageddon). The Bush endorsement may also corral some key Jewish votes in Florida."
It is her parenthetical explanation that worries many. This is explored in detail by the Guardian's George Monbiot, who is among many people worldwide who are now starting to believe that US Christian Fundamentalists are Driving Bush's Middle East Policy.
Indeed, pride goeth before a fall, and so does self-righteousness. But if Monbiot's commentary about such decsions being made with 'end times' armageddon in mind is accurate, then that destruction is not only unavoidable, but in fact the glorious and long-awaited, albeit fire-consumed, outcome of mankind on the planet.
As potential voters consider pulling the GOP lever in November, they'll have to decide if they want a policy apparatus more in line with Tim LaHaye than Henry Kissinger.
As for me, I'm just waiting for an answer to the prophetic bumpersticker: "In case of Rapture, Can I have your Car?"
Comments:
Post a Comment
