Dr. Steven Jonas

In The New York Times Magazine of October 17, 2004, Ron Suskind gave the most comprehensive picture yet of George W. Bush’s concept of the “faith-based Presidency” and how it operates. George Bush apparently really believes that he is on a mission from God, that his decision-making is based on God’s wishes, and that he is carrying out God’s vision. A major and well-known feature of this approach to governing is that Bush acts with absolute certainty. He makes decisions that he just knows are right, because God is in his mind and Bush knows that God is right.

Once made, therefore, Bush’s decisions are right, because, expressing the will of God, Bush made them. (In the minds of religious people of the Georgite persuasion, circular reasoning has a very important place.) Ergo his inability to see that he has ever made a mistake, at least since being ‘born again’. So naturally, we witnessed the famous news conference and Presidential debate episodes in which he could not think of a single mistake that he had made. If you never made one, there is nothing to admit, is there? Another well-known feature of Bush’s approach to governance is that facts do not matter unless they happen to conform to or confirm his preconceived notion of what God’s vision is that he is carrying out. A third major aspect of his approach, confirmed by Suskind, is that Bush wants a staff that has been trained not to question and not to offer data, evidence, or analysis, apparently either before or after he has made a decision. This aspect explains thoroughly the character of the changes he is in the process of making in his Cabinet.

For example, Colin Powell was willing to lie at the UN for him, and thus throw his own reputation into the dustbin of history. But apparently, on occasion, Powell would privately offer a contrary view on policy or pass along some information/analysis from the State Department staff that did not jibe with Bush’s already firmly-held conclusions. And so, Powell had to go. As did George Tenet at the CIA. While he apparently tried hard to play good soldier, Tenet seems to have had the temerity on occasion to suggest that intelligence might influence policy, even if that intelligence went against Georgite preconceived notions. Bush’s man Porter Goss has already issued an order that everything coming up from the CIA must be in accord with already set White House policy. So absolutely gone are the days when knowledge and data might actually help formulate policy. Policy will, rather, formulate intelligence.

Mr. Suskind explained and illustrated the major characteristics of Bush-think in great depth. His writing and conclusions are based on interviews with many different sources who confirm the overall picture. A number of those sources were willing to let their names be used. It is fascinating that, to my knowledge, the White House never issued a single denial of any of the content of Mr. Suskind’s report. Nor did they, as they usually do when negatives appear, furiously, viciously, and repeatedly attack the messenger through their privatized Ministry of Propaganda, Fox “News” Channel, Washington Times, HanniBaugh, and etc. Of course, even if what Suskind wrote were false, the Bush people would be hard pressed to deny it -- because what he reported is exactly how Bush’s base wants him to think and be as President: “God’s emissary.” It reflects exactly how the Christian Right has portrayed the source of his “victory”: God. Given what we know from this article, and indeed from many other reports, the picture is indeed an accurate one.

Despite what is generally recognized as Bush’s approach to governance that leads to his decisions and his unchanging commitment to them once made, in fact, he does change his mind on what are to him relatively unimportant matters. For example, whether global warming is real or not, whether there should be a 9/11 Commission or not, and whether the nation’s intelligence system should be reformed or not. He can do this because he knows that nothing coming out of such position changes is going to alter his policies or his representations of reality anyway.

However, on his big issues, such as: waging war on Iraq; cutting taxes for the rich and the large corporations; ending Social Security as we know it; opening up as much of the US environment to corporate plunder as possible; making the Courts as right-wing as he can so that the Christian Right can get its way on gay marriage and abortion rights; eventually destroying the whole of the Federal government as we know it, in accord with the policies of Grover Norquist; changing the Constitution without bothering to go through the amendment process, in accord with the policies of Karl Rove (Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian UK, 11/25/04); he is indeed unchanging.

The critical issue now facing our country in the wake of Bush’s garnering of a second term (whether by a true electoral win or by cheating) is: what are the implications of the Bush “faith-based” theory of governance for American constitutional government and its future? I shall offer some answers to this question next week, in Part II of this essay, and it is a subject to which I shall return in more depth from time to time.

“Two recent ‘Dr. J.’s Short Shots’ from the Weblog of The Planetary Movement”

I am very pleased to be back on the Web with The Political Junkies.net. I hope that you are happy to have us here. There is much to talk about, to be sure, and you can be sure that we, with your help and participation, will be doing just that in this space for the foreseeable future.

Shortly before the election, Michael Carmichael, European Editor for The Political Junkies, was kind enough to invite me to be a Contributing Editor to the Weblog of his new international organization, The Planetary Movement. I invite you to visit its website at http://www.planetarymovement.org/. TPM’s Weblog can be found at http://planetmove.blogspot.com/. For this returning column, I am pleased to offer you two of what I call “Dr. J’s Short Shots” from the Weblog.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 25: The True Agenda of the Republican Religious Right (Nov. 25, 2004)

In The Guardian (UK) of November 25, 2004 the US political analyst Sidney Blumenthal had a column about the opening ceremonies for the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, AK. The article is entitled "One gulp and Bush was gone.” In the article, Mr. Blumenthal makes a number of fascinating observations. I just want to note the most chilling of them.

In reference to Karl Rove, Blumenthal noted that "offstage, beforehand, Rove and Bush had had their library tours. According to two eyewitnesses, Rove had shown keen interest in everything he saw, and asked questions, including about costs, obviously thinking about a future George W. Bush library and legacy. 'You're not such a scary guy,' joked his guide. 'Yes, I am,' Rove replied. Walking away, he muttered deliberately and loudly: 'I change constitutions, I put churches in schools ...' "

This, folks, is the true, bedrock, agenda of the Republican Religious Right in general and the Georgites in particular. They are already well on their way to achieving it, as I have noted both in this space and in my weekly columns for The Political Junkies.net. In fact, the President has already unilaterally amended the Constitution, without so much as a peep from either the Congress or the mainstream media. First, he gave himself the power to declare war. It just so happens that declaration of war is a power that the Constitution grants to the Congress, not to the President. And then he further unilaterally abrogated international treaties, those of the Geneva Conventions that under Article VI of the Constitution are part of it as the highest law of the land, because, in a masterpiece of Constitution-destroying circular reasoning, "we are at war."

This puts into the boldest of type the fundamental conflict we Americans now face. Hopefully, the Democratic Party will soon wake up to that fact, make it the No. 1 political agenda item for the foreseeable future, and will eventually be able to win the battle in the political arena. If it does not, or if it is not succeeded by an opposition party that has both the proper focus and the broad-based support, the struggle is sure to become long, violent, and very bloody.

I will be treating the subject of "The Coming Second Civil War (Unless)" at length in an upcoming series at The Political Junkies.net.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 27: Iranian Nukes

Not a day seems to pass without the Iranians changing their position on nuclear weapons development. One day, they are accepting European proposals for an agreement to suspend it; the next day they seem to be repudiating any agreement.

I happen to think that the scariest nation having nuclear weaponry at present is the United States under the Georgites. It is well known that leading members of and top advisors to the Georgite regime have for some time openly talked about invading Iran. The U.S. is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons, and since the time of Eisenhower American administration, (only under successor Republican ones to my knowledge) has actually considered using them again in one situation or another. Currently, in the Iraq situation Georgite sympathizers talked about “nuking” Fallujah and it is only recently that cost-cutting Republicans in the Congress have eliminated, for the time-being at least, the Georgite program to develop “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons, designed to get at underground facilities of various kinds.

If I were in the Iranian leadership, given these facts and given that close-by Israel, presently under the Partition-rejectionist/Palestinians-ejectionist Sharonists, is estimated to have about 400 nuclear weapons, I would want to have them too. Unless a deal is made, given that the Iranian nuclear industry is widely decentralized, only a complete takeover of the whole country by the US could prevent that from otherwise happening eventually. The trade that the Iranians may be on their way to making with the Europeans and the Russians may be indeed to not acquire nuclear weapons, in return for a solid guarantee of protection against U.S. aggression. (Remember, like Iraq, Iran is strategically located and has lots of oil.) Perhaps this is what the on-again/off-again nature of the public Iranian position is all about, as the various forces maneuver behind closed doors to provide those guarantees to the Iranians. Stranger alliances have occurred in history.

________________

Dr. Steven Jonas is a TPJ contributing author. He is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author of some twenty books. Dr. Jonas is one of America's most perceptive Democratic political analysts.

In The New Americanism, Dr. Jonas presents his case that the Democratic Party has come adrift from its founding principles, and he urges a swift return to support for the constitution as the best source for America's patriotic, political and social culture. "The New Americanism: How the Democratic Party Can Win the Presidency from Amazon.com (just click on the title).