archived: 19 - 25 Dec, 2004         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  December 23, 2004 

                        “THE REAL MEANING OF THE ‘FAITH-BASED PRESIDENCY’, PART II” 

As I noted two weeks ago, 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.  Part I (see below) of this two-part series discussed some of the implications for past Georgite policy of this approach to governance. 

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?  

First, the theory can mean that, indeed, somewhere out in that immense Universe a God exists who is cognizant of humans and their affairs down to a fairly micro level and who takes a direct interest in their daily conduct.  In such a case, the leader of a country can really be guided by God and his/her/its wishes/plans for it and its citizens.  Whatever such wishes/plans are, of course, they are transmitted privately to The Leader who states that he/she has access to this God.  No one else is privy to the being, can confirm its existence, or affirm that any ‘other’ listener got the instructions right.  Second, “faith-based” governance can mean that even if there is fact no such a “God” as described above, the person in authority who rules based on “faith” truly believes that there is, and that in making all the decisions of the office, he/she is “carrying out God’s will.”    

Nevertheless, whether or not there is a God, or at least one who gets involved at a detailed level in human affairs, the ruler who claims this authority is really making decisions and giving orders based solely on what he/she thinks is right and what he/she wants to do, based solely on his/her own authority.  Whether or not the thoughts are coming from God, the thinking process is going on in the ruler’s own mind.  Because that person is convinced that the thinking is produced by God or at least reflects God’s will, there is no reference either to evidence or (heaven help him) rational analysis, or to any binding human laws, such as the U.S. Constitution.   

In reality such a ruler, in this case Bush, may or may not be doing “God’s will” (and Bush really seems to think he is).  But that matter is irrelevant.  In practice, the rules of governance have become Bush’s Rules (in this case proudly made without recourse to evidence, analysis, and the process of reasoning, as one source told Mr. Suskind).  So far as Bush is concerned the rules “come from God,” and in the well-known Scalia-Thomas way of thinking “Natural Law,” that is “God’s Law,” stands above the Constitution.  Thus in Bush’s mind, since he is “doing God’s will” the Constitution no longer needs to be adhered to.  On such matters as: individual rights (The Patriot Act), abiding by international treaties that just happen to be part of the Constitution (the endorsement of the use of torture on prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions), or the declaration of war (Bush’s “war on terror,” self-, and not Congressionally, declared), Bush has just ignored both the process and the content required by the Constitution and the traditional US Constitutional form of government and governing.   

Whether Bush is “carrying out God’s purpose” or not, he has substituted his say-so for that of the Constitution.  He has substituted the Rule of Man, his own, for the Rule of Law, the Constitution.  When Bush says, “God’s will be done,” whether he recognizes it or not, in reality what he is saying: “MY will be done.”  This is an entirely new element in the American system of governance.  This theory of governance stands at the entrance to the road to dictatorship and fascism. 

This is what a “faith-based” Presidency really means.  We have got a “faith-based” leadership in the House of Representatives as well, for Tom DeLay has publicly said that he is also “doing God’s work.”  This is what at its core the Republican Religious Right is all about: the substitution of the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law.  This is the battle that must be joined, and joined soon, if our beloved country is not to sink into the abyss into which this kind of thinking has lead every country ever governed by it in the course of history. 

_______________ 

This Part I of the Dr. Jonas’ two part series.  

UPDATED: December 9, 2004 

                        “THE REAL MEANING OF THE ‘FAITH-BASED PRESIDENCY’”       

 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. 

 ________________  

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

In his book The New Americanism, Dr. Jonas presents his case that the Democratic Party has come adrift from its founding principles.  He urges the Party to turn to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to find the new vision and mission that it, and our country, so desperately need. "The New Americanism: How the Democratic Party Can Win the Presidency  is available from Amazon.com (just click on the title) and BarnesandNoble.com.

He is also the author of The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022, originally published in 1996 under the pseudonym “Jonathan Westminster,” and republished with a New Introduction in 2004, under the same author's name.  The 2004 edition is available at www.barnesandnoble.com (just enter the title) and www.xlibris.com (“Bookstore,” “Search”).  Both versions are available at www.amazon.com (just click on the title).