G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Demagoguery and Christian Ethics
By Mark Biskeborn
Created Apr 4 2008 - 12:08am
George Bush uses the Christian faith and its symbols to work miracles for
winning political battles.
Sometimes, when seeking inspiration, I hang out on the lower side of San
Pedro, LA's harbor area, where I talk to the hobos and the people who
inhabit another dimension. Other times I just walk down the street to a
Catholic Church and hang out with the parishioners. After talking with
acquaintances there, I realized many people had actually voted for G.W. Bush
simply because he talked about God. In this regard, Bush has mastered modern
politics, so let's give him credit for manipulation at least.
But then, alas, the questions came to me. Does the local church reflect the
nation's way of thinking? Is a man who talks of God necessarily a follower
of Christ's teachings? Does God-talk make a man more moral?
Then I recalled how my good friend Machiavelli once told me about how he set
down one of the most explicit doctrines for modern politics while advising a
sixteenth-century prince, counseling him to do whatever was practical for
the sake of power, and that it was highly effective to use moral principles
and especially religion to achieve success.
Today's politician often operates on Machiavelli's counsel by appealing to
the general public's feelings about ethics as a rhetorical means to obtain
popular support.
Machiavelli also advised the use of fear as a means to establish power,
believing that a man's flexibility in morality and religion enables him to
gain political success as fortune (social attitudes) changes over time.
"Thus, it is not necessary for a prince to have all the above-mentioned
virtues in fact, but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them," said
Machiavelli.
"The Bush Tapes" and Machiavelli
G.W. Bush seems to follow this advice carefully, although, as revealed in
the "Bush Tapes," during his personal struggle against drugs and alcohol, he
made a deeply personal and sincere conversion to religious faith. He has
made it clear that his conversion also plays an opportune role in his
political rhetoric.
Bush has found that the use of popular Christian faith and symbols works
miracles to gain public support for his policies. Indeed, according to the
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in 2000, 15 million evangelical
Protestants voted with 23 percent of the electorate, and 71 percent of them
voted for Bush.
Though, let's not forget that Bush lost the popular vote of 2000 and it was
the extremely conservative US Supreme Court judges, appointees, who voted
him into office.
In 2004, Protestants again accounted for about 23 percent of the electorate.
But overall turnout was much higher, and 78 percent of the evangelicals who
voted, voted for Bush. That represents roughly 3.5 million extra votes for
him. Bush's total vote rose by 9 million, so evangelical Protestants alone
accounted for more than a third of his increased vote.
Though, let's not forget that once a President enters office and wages a
war, the American people have always supported the President in staying the
course, even if it means jumping off a cliff.
Then the "Bush Tapes" were uncovered and revealed Bush as less driven by his
religious beliefs than many people might have previously assumed. In the
tapes, he refers to religious images as the right buttons to push when
looking for public support. While preparing to meet Christian leaders in
1998, Bush said: "There are some code words. There are some proper ways to
say things, and some improper ways. I am going to say that I've accepted
Christ into my life." (New York Times, 19 Feb. 05)
Bush and God
Bush referred to God 10 times in his first inaugural in 2000, including this
claim: "I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I
know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than
ourselves, who creates us equal, in His image." In his three State of the
Union addresses since, Bush invoked God another 14 times.
No other president has used God so often in his State of the Unions or
inaugurations. The closest to Bush's average of six references to God in
each of his addresses is Ronald Reagan with an average 4 in his comparable
speeches. Jimmy Carter, considered one of the most pious of presidents,
mentioned God only twice in four addresses. Further back in history, others
to talk of God were Franklin Roosevelt at 1.5 and Johnson at 1.5 per
inaugurals and State of the Unions.
These former presidents spoke as humble petitioners asking for divine
guidance, unlike Bush's claim in 2003 that "Americans are a free people, who
know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every
nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's
gift to humanity."
Unlike his predecessors, Bush declares some divine understanding of God's
intensions. Is this prophecy? If not prophecy, at least it can make people
feel like they are closer to God because they happen to live in a particular
country, chosen by God. People like to hear this. It helps them to feel good
about themselves.
This change in White House rhetoric is apparent in how presidents have
spoken about God and the values of freedom and liberty, two ideas central to
today's American identity that strum the emotional heartstrings of folks in
the heartlands.
The Christian and Jewish versions of God have served the neoconservative
movement to gain political power from its early days with Reagan to its
infamy with W.
Do Bush's Policies Reflect Christian Principles?
Bush uses Christian references as an effective means to sway the American
public to his policies. All he has to do is mention "god" and people bow
down to the high priest. At a White House press conference, Bush responded
to questions: "Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman.we have
been called to do."
As a demagogue, Bush uses the cultural trend of increasing religious fervor
in America, perhaps a reaction to Islamic movements, as a means to garner
middle class popularity for his bold policies which often do not serve
middle-class interests. Indeed, many of his policies seem to ignore the
basic ethical principles Christ taught.
His reduction in inheritance tax, euphemized as "estate tax," for huge
fortunes only continues the trend to concentrate the distribution of wealth
back to the rich. This does not spread opportunity democratically down to
the middle classes. On the contrary, it intensifies the concentration of
wealth among the rich. Didn't Christ teach charity repeatedly? Let's check
our Bibles.
In the same vein, the international free-trade agreements, inspired by
Milton Friedman's pitiful theories, reduce production costs for the wealthy
ownership class while they pit the working poor of third-world tyrannically
governed countries against American middle-class workers. Didn't Christ
teach justice and fairness repeatedly? Do these policies reflect the ethical
principles that Christ taught such as charity and justice?
Since Bush makes more references to Christian faith than any of his modern
predecessors, should we expect him to apply Christian moral principles?
Bush's
Christian talk does not reflect his policies.
Only conclusion we can draw here is that many Americans vote not based on
political policies, but on how uplifting the candidate makes them feel. How
god-like they might appear.
My friend Machiavelli tells me how he delights that the neocons are using
his advice after all these centuries.
Justifying the Invasion of Iraq
To his credit, Bush does occasionally use other, non-religious reasons for
his policies, such as for invading Iraq. Eventually, he came to use genocide
and violations of international law and of human rights as justifications.
Yet, if Bush did seriously place any priority on these criteria, he would
take action in countries where these problems are rampant such as in China,
Sudan, or Rwanda and elsewhere. He has done nothing in any such countries.
On the contrary, so long as corporations increase profits, God bless the
Chinese sweat shops and its destruction of Tibet.
Despite Bush's references to some greater prophetic Christian calling, he
does focus his attention on Iraq, and not on Sudan, China, Saudi Arabia...or
any other tyrannical regime, because his priority does not lie with moral
principles, but rather with the goal to re-establish Iraq as the U.S. client
state it once was because of its rich petroleum reserves, 15 percent of the
world reserve.
This preemptive war in Iraq aims at benefiting America's political and
economic interests. Although since the American botched occupation of Iraq,
terrorism arose and now flourishes there at the cost so far of over 4,000
U.S. soldiers' lives and more than a trillion in our taxes. Let's not
mention the estimated million dead civilians.
Instead of telling the crass truth about the oil motives to occupy Iraq,
rather than investing in renewable energy, Bush chose a more effective
approach. He eventually came to use God as a justification.
For the preemptive invasion of Iraq, Bush has given us many justifications.
He seemed to be groping and grasping for the right buttons to push that
would garner public support among the vast religious middle class. First, he
told us he wanted to control the WMD's, but nobody found any before or after
the invasion. Bush also claimed he wanted to bring justice to terrorists,
but then evidence proved that Saddam Hussein and his regime were secular
enemies to the likes of Al Qaeda.
In fact, Osama bin Laden pleaded with Saudi Royalty to invade Iraq in place
of the U.S. military. Bush said he wanted to capture the evil tyrant, but
then many Iraqi insurgents continue to fight against the occupation.
Finally, Bush told us it's America's calling by God to spread freedom and
democracy.
Was Bush groping for a believable justification in order to gain support for
his war?
Guided also by the highly influential Israeli-American Jewish Lobby, Bush
represents a larger neoconservative ideology that mixes its own peculiar
understanding of Jewish and Christian ethics with capitalist goals where
church, state, and commerce intermix. Capitalist goals such as amassing
wealth for the few somehow represents a Judeo-Christian ethic at least for
the neocons.
Many of the large corporations that benefit from invading and then occupying
Iraq, the war contractors, such as Carlyle Group, Vought Aircraft,
Halliburton and others, contribute to the campaign coffers that got him
elected, not to mention that the families of Bush and of some of his cabinet
members own large portions of stock in them. To this day, Cheney still
receives the dividends from Halliburton and other stock options.
Contrary to Bush's Christian rhetoric, Saint Paul and other founding fathers
of Christianity, including Christ himself, were pacifists. Tertuallian,
Origen, and Clement of Alexandria agreed that a Christian could not be a
soldier.
This ethical view changed only after 312 A.D. when the Roman Emperor,
Constantine, chose to become baptized, and did so partly in order to unify
an otherwise crumbling empire. At that time, Christian thinkers like Saint
Augustine began to develop the notion of a 'just war' in the name of God.
Once embraced by the Roman establishment, Christianity lost its rebellious,
radical edge as a beacon for the poor and became part of the mainstream
Roman culture and power structure. Christianity and political ideology were
merged at this time of empire building and maintenance. This revised version
of Christian ethics made solid political sense at the time because without
allowing for war, Christianity would have taken a very different path in
history.
This revision of Christian ethics runs clearly against the teachings of
Christ. Didn't Christ go to the cross, along with thousands of other Jews,
because the ruling Pharisees at the time were expecting a political, even
militant king as opposed to the 'Prince of Peace' while under Roman
oppression? Let's check our Bibles.
Christianity as a Marketing Tool
Bush uses Christian talk and symbols to build support for his political
position. In a word, he does what professional marketeers do; he leverages
the current cultural ethos to gain popular support, as Machiavelli advised
centuries ago.
Bush does, after all have an MBA and he probably did attend his marketing
classes occasionally. In this regard, he has become a master of modern
politics at least while guided by Turd-Blossom Rove. As Bush exploits
Christianity as a means to spread neoconservative corporatist interests, the
resulting ideology appears as a perverse blasphemy of the original Christ
teachings.
Bush works from a peculiar revision of Christian ethics to create a new form
of corporatist fundamentalism not completely unlike Islamic fundamentalists,
such as sects like Wahhabi. In so doing Bush stands Christ's ethical
teachings on its head.
Corporate profits, industrial petroleum requirements, and the concentration
of wealth seem to be some of the values that motivate Bush in many of his
policies, neither the protection of the environment, nor prevention of human
rights violations, tyranny, or genocide which arise daily in the world and
to which Bush's administration remains mostly oblivious. On the contrary,
Bush and his neoconservative brethren have only increased massive deaths and
torture.
Bush has gone to unusual efforts to accommodate the ruling elite in the
Middle East, such as the Royal family of Saud, most of which are members of
the Islamic fundamentalism and some of whom contribute to other
fundamentalist groups such as Al Qaeda.
Peace, charity, justice, equality, generosity are all moral principles
Christ taught repeatedly through sermons, parables, and plain talk. Bush's
policies do not reflect these principles despite his Christian talk.
Industry and military run on oil. The Bush administration's actions indicate
that, at least for them, economic interests outweigh Christian ethics and
the ideals of democracy and human rights, despite the clever Christian talk.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Mark Biskeborn
Created Apr 4 2008 - 12:08am
George Bush uses the Christian faith and its symbols to work miracles for
winning political battles.
Sometimes, when seeking inspiration, I hang out on the lower side of San
Pedro, LA's harbor area, where I talk to the hobos and the people who
inhabit another dimension. Other times I just walk down the street to a
Catholic Church and hang out with the parishioners. After talking with
acquaintances there, I realized many people had actually voted for G.W. Bush
simply because he talked about God. In this regard, Bush has mastered modern
politics, so let's give him credit for manipulation at least.
But then, alas, the questions came to me. Does the local church reflect the
nation's way of thinking? Is a man who talks of God necessarily a follower
of Christ's teachings? Does God-talk make a man more moral?
Then I recalled how my good friend Machiavelli once told me about how he set
down one of the most explicit doctrines for modern politics while advising a
sixteenth-century prince, counseling him to do whatever was practical for
the sake of power, and that it was highly effective to use moral principles
and especially religion to achieve success.
Today's politician often operates on Machiavelli's counsel by appealing to
the general public's feelings about ethics as a rhetorical means to obtain
popular support.
Machiavelli also advised the use of fear as a means to establish power,
believing that a man's flexibility in morality and religion enables him to
gain political success as fortune (social attitudes) changes over time.
"Thus, it is not necessary for a prince to have all the above-mentioned
virtues in fact, but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them," said
Machiavelli.
"The Bush Tapes" and Machiavelli
G.W. Bush seems to follow this advice carefully, although, as revealed in
the "Bush Tapes," during his personal struggle against drugs and alcohol, he
made a deeply personal and sincere conversion to religious faith. He has
made it clear that his conversion also plays an opportune role in his
political rhetoric.
Bush has found that the use of popular Christian faith and symbols works
miracles to gain public support for his policies. Indeed, according to the
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in 2000, 15 million evangelical
Protestants voted with 23 percent of the electorate, and 71 percent of them
voted for Bush.
Though, let's not forget that Bush lost the popular vote of 2000 and it was
the extremely conservative US Supreme Court judges, appointees, who voted
him into office.
In 2004, Protestants again accounted for about 23 percent of the electorate.
But overall turnout was much higher, and 78 percent of the evangelicals who
voted, voted for Bush. That represents roughly 3.5 million extra votes for
him. Bush's total vote rose by 9 million, so evangelical Protestants alone
accounted for more than a third of his increased vote.
Though, let's not forget that once a President enters office and wages a
war, the American people have always supported the President in staying the
course, even if it means jumping off a cliff.
Then the "Bush Tapes" were uncovered and revealed Bush as less driven by his
religious beliefs than many people might have previously assumed. In the
tapes, he refers to religious images as the right buttons to push when
looking for public support. While preparing to meet Christian leaders in
1998, Bush said: "There are some code words. There are some proper ways to
say things, and some improper ways. I am going to say that I've accepted
Christ into my life." (New York Times, 19 Feb. 05)
Bush and God
Bush referred to God 10 times in his first inaugural in 2000, including this
claim: "I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I
know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than
ourselves, who creates us equal, in His image." In his three State of the
Union addresses since, Bush invoked God another 14 times.
No other president has used God so often in his State of the Unions or
inaugurations. The closest to Bush's average of six references to God in
each of his addresses is Ronald Reagan with an average 4 in his comparable
speeches. Jimmy Carter, considered one of the most pious of presidents,
mentioned God only twice in four addresses. Further back in history, others
to talk of God were Franklin Roosevelt at 1.5 and Johnson at 1.5 per
inaugurals and State of the Unions.
These former presidents spoke as humble petitioners asking for divine
guidance, unlike Bush's claim in 2003 that "Americans are a free people, who
know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every
nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's
gift to humanity."
Unlike his predecessors, Bush declares some divine understanding of God's
intensions. Is this prophecy? If not prophecy, at least it can make people
feel like they are closer to God because they happen to live in a particular
country, chosen by God. People like to hear this. It helps them to feel good
about themselves.
This change in White House rhetoric is apparent in how presidents have
spoken about God and the values of freedom and liberty, two ideas central to
today's American identity that strum the emotional heartstrings of folks in
the heartlands.
The Christian and Jewish versions of God have served the neoconservative
movement to gain political power from its early days with Reagan to its
infamy with W.
Do Bush's Policies Reflect Christian Principles?
Bush uses Christian references as an effective means to sway the American
public to his policies. All he has to do is mention "god" and people bow
down to the high priest. At a White House press conference, Bush responded
to questions: "Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman.we have
been called to do."
As a demagogue, Bush uses the cultural trend of increasing religious fervor
in America, perhaps a reaction to Islamic movements, as a means to garner
middle class popularity for his bold policies which often do not serve
middle-class interests. Indeed, many of his policies seem to ignore the
basic ethical principles Christ taught.
His reduction in inheritance tax, euphemized as "estate tax," for huge
fortunes only continues the trend to concentrate the distribution of wealth
back to the rich. This does not spread opportunity democratically down to
the middle classes. On the contrary, it intensifies the concentration of
wealth among the rich. Didn't Christ teach charity repeatedly? Let's check
our Bibles.
In the same vein, the international free-trade agreements, inspired by
Milton Friedman's pitiful theories, reduce production costs for the wealthy
ownership class while they pit the working poor of third-world tyrannically
governed countries against American middle-class workers. Didn't Christ
teach justice and fairness repeatedly? Do these policies reflect the ethical
principles that Christ taught such as charity and justice?
Since Bush makes more references to Christian faith than any of his modern
predecessors, should we expect him to apply Christian moral principles?
Bush's
Christian talk does not reflect his policies.
Only conclusion we can draw here is that many Americans vote not based on
political policies, but on how uplifting the candidate makes them feel. How
god-like they might appear.
My friend Machiavelli tells me how he delights that the neocons are using
his advice after all these centuries.
Justifying the Invasion of Iraq
To his credit, Bush does occasionally use other, non-religious reasons for
his policies, such as for invading Iraq. Eventually, he came to use genocide
and violations of international law and of human rights as justifications.
Yet, if Bush did seriously place any priority on these criteria, he would
take action in countries where these problems are rampant such as in China,
Sudan, or Rwanda and elsewhere. He has done nothing in any such countries.
On the contrary, so long as corporations increase profits, God bless the
Chinese sweat shops and its destruction of Tibet.
Despite Bush's references to some greater prophetic Christian calling, he
does focus his attention on Iraq, and not on Sudan, China, Saudi Arabia...or
any other tyrannical regime, because his priority does not lie with moral
principles, but rather with the goal to re-establish Iraq as the U.S. client
state it once was because of its rich petroleum reserves, 15 percent of the
world reserve.
This preemptive war in Iraq aims at benefiting America's political and
economic interests. Although since the American botched occupation of Iraq,
terrorism arose and now flourishes there at the cost so far of over 4,000
U.S. soldiers' lives and more than a trillion in our taxes. Let's not
mention the estimated million dead civilians.
Instead of telling the crass truth about the oil motives to occupy Iraq,
rather than investing in renewable energy, Bush chose a more effective
approach. He eventually came to use God as a justification.
For the preemptive invasion of Iraq, Bush has given us many justifications.
He seemed to be groping and grasping for the right buttons to push that
would garner public support among the vast religious middle class. First, he
told us he wanted to control the WMD's, but nobody found any before or after
the invasion. Bush also claimed he wanted to bring justice to terrorists,
but then evidence proved that Saddam Hussein and his regime were secular
enemies to the likes of Al Qaeda.
In fact, Osama bin Laden pleaded with Saudi Royalty to invade Iraq in place
of the U.S. military. Bush said he wanted to capture the evil tyrant, but
then many Iraqi insurgents continue to fight against the occupation.
Finally, Bush told us it's America's calling by God to spread freedom and
democracy.
Was Bush groping for a believable justification in order to gain support for
his war?
Guided also by the highly influential Israeli-American Jewish Lobby, Bush
represents a larger neoconservative ideology that mixes its own peculiar
understanding of Jewish and Christian ethics with capitalist goals where
church, state, and commerce intermix. Capitalist goals such as amassing
wealth for the few somehow represents a Judeo-Christian ethic at least for
the neocons.
Many of the large corporations that benefit from invading and then occupying
Iraq, the war contractors, such as Carlyle Group, Vought Aircraft,
Halliburton and others, contribute to the campaign coffers that got him
elected, not to mention that the families of Bush and of some of his cabinet
members own large portions of stock in them. To this day, Cheney still
receives the dividends from Halliburton and other stock options.
Contrary to Bush's Christian rhetoric, Saint Paul and other founding fathers
of Christianity, including Christ himself, were pacifists. Tertuallian,
Origen, and Clement of Alexandria agreed that a Christian could not be a
soldier.
This ethical view changed only after 312 A.D. when the Roman Emperor,
Constantine, chose to become baptized, and did so partly in order to unify
an otherwise crumbling empire. At that time, Christian thinkers like Saint
Augustine began to develop the notion of a 'just war' in the name of God.
Once embraced by the Roman establishment, Christianity lost its rebellious,
radical edge as a beacon for the poor and became part of the mainstream
Roman culture and power structure. Christianity and political ideology were
merged at this time of empire building and maintenance. This revised version
of Christian ethics made solid political sense at the time because without
allowing for war, Christianity would have taken a very different path in
history.
This revision of Christian ethics runs clearly against the teachings of
Christ. Didn't Christ go to the cross, along with thousands of other Jews,
because the ruling Pharisees at the time were expecting a political, even
militant king as opposed to the 'Prince of Peace' while under Roman
oppression? Let's check our Bibles.
Christianity as a Marketing Tool
Bush uses Christian talk and symbols to build support for his political
position. In a word, he does what professional marketeers do; he leverages
the current cultural ethos to gain popular support, as Machiavelli advised
centuries ago.
Bush does, after all have an MBA and he probably did attend his marketing
classes occasionally. In this regard, he has become a master of modern
politics at least while guided by Turd-Blossom Rove. As Bush exploits
Christianity as a means to spread neoconservative corporatist interests, the
resulting ideology appears as a perverse blasphemy of the original Christ
teachings.
Bush works from a peculiar revision of Christian ethics to create a new form
of corporatist fundamentalism not completely unlike Islamic fundamentalists,
such as sects like Wahhabi. In so doing Bush stands Christ's ethical
teachings on its head.
Corporate profits, industrial petroleum requirements, and the concentration
of wealth seem to be some of the values that motivate Bush in many of his
policies, neither the protection of the environment, nor prevention of human
rights violations, tyranny, or genocide which arise daily in the world and
to which Bush's administration remains mostly oblivious. On the contrary,
Bush and his neoconservative brethren have only increased massive deaths and
torture.
Bush has gone to unusual efforts to accommodate the ruling elite in the
Middle East, such as the Royal family of Saud, most of which are members of
the Islamic fundamentalism and some of whom contribute to other
fundamentalist groups such as Al Qaeda.
Peace, charity, justice, equality, generosity are all moral principles
Christ taught repeatedly through sermons, parables, and plain talk. Bush's
policies do not reflect these principles despite his Christian talk.
Industry and military run on oil. The Bush administration's actions indicate
that, at least for them, economic interests outweigh Christian ethics and
the ideals of democracy and human rights, despite the clever Christian talk.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson