Bush's Moral Fervour; Updated December 9
I have papers to grade, but I want to at least start a post on how Bush is the right leader for the U.S. at this time because he gives voice to a kind of moral fervour that a lot of Americans feel.
In his interview with Jessica Stern, cited earlier, Nick Cavanaugh says: "After September 11 there was a widespread feeling that the whole country was searching its soul, that we'd gotten back to what's important and had 'moral clarity' after a low, dishonest decade."
Perhaps this is what observers of the Iraq war, who are not particularly sympathetic to the U.S. effort there, are likely to forget--at least, speaking for myself, I need to keep it in mind. (To be clear, I don't really doubt that the U.S. cause is a noble one, but I do question whether the initiative was wise).
Large numbers of U.S. civilians were attacked on U.S. soil on 9/11. This was almost unheard of. Many Americans felt a strong desire for revenge. To their credit, the government gave considerable time to reflection and diplomatic initiatives, rather than striking back at someone blindly. Nevertheless, in President Bush's remarks, and in the apparent public support for the President, there is a sense that facts do not carry much weight, and in fact don't need to be investigated carefully. Attacking was simply the morally right thing to do. To Bush's defenders, it is so obvious that it was not about oil, or a few Texas millionaires, or family honour, and so obvious that it was somehow about fighting international terrorism, making the world safe for democracy, and spreading democracy, that criticism is outrageous, or beyond the pale.
The analogies between Saddam on the one hand, and Hitler and Stalin on the other, are meant to suggest that any argument against an attack on Saddam amounts to support for the worst tyrants in history. If those rationales for the attack which are actually grounded in the legitimate national interst of the U.S. are increasingly dubious, it is all the more the case that the U.S. must have aimed to liberate the poor suffering Iraqis--a noble, morally pure cause.
Bush conveys this conviction of moral purity, of not letting facts get in his way, almost perfectly. It is pretty clear that some of the regimes with which the U.S. is now allied are roughly as unsavoury as Saddam's--and some may actually be more closely linked to international terrorism. Bush responded to all such suggestions recently (here and here) by saying the U.S. will always be promoting democracy, in every theatre of international activity, from now on. (Some comments here).
For those of us who, rightly or wrongly, feel a bit detached from the prayer meeting (a bit like Ben Franklin, standing at the back and wondering how far, and how many listeners, a preacher's voice could actually reach), it is both tempting and easy to reduce the story so far to a series of jokes, which might be helpful in explaining the sequence of events to a visiting Martian.
Why the attack on Iraq, a good-sized country that might be difficult to subdue and govern, when there was still considerable debate about the merits of doing so? It's like the old poster showing two vultures side by side on a tree branch. One says to the other: "Patience be damned. I'm going to kill something." Bush felt strongly that he had no choice but to act. Afghanistan wasn't a big enough prize; Iraq was much more impressive, so to speak, as a candidate for "Westernization," or freeing a people from terrorist-style Islamic fundamentalism. As Arab countries go, it had a history of some wealth, a substantial middle class, and considerable Westernization.
Why Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Pakistan? There's a Groucho Marx routine somewhere (I know it from a Peter DeVries novel): Groucho as a teacher, in front of a class. One young man is hopeless--lounging, indifferent, sullen, saying only "I don't know," "I don't care," and "you figure it out, you're the teacher." Finally, in desperation, Groucho points to an attractive young woman and says: "That's it, you stay after school." "Me?" she says. "But I didn't do anything!" "That's true," says Groucho, "but what good would it do to keep him after school?"
Why has Bush offered a series of ultimatums to old allies, who might have contributed to a more reasoned campaign against international terrorism? He doesn't think they're good enough to live in Mayberry, or anywhere on Walton's Mountain. Of course, they might visit--God knows, we get all kinds passing through--but they're not quite up to snuff. Too cynical, defeatist, kind of like we all used to be before 9/11. Those French buggers have proved it before: they'll relax in a nice cafe, as long as the good wine is still being poured, and simply watch the German tanks roll by. Hell, they're not good enough to date Mary Tyler Moore--or even Britney Spears.
I have put the new DVD of Looney Tunes on my Christmas list--not the 4 disc set, but the 2 disc set. I can't resist suggesting Clinton was a classic Bugs Bunny character. Charming, and in many ways a popular leader, but it was an open secret that he might not be trustworthy. Too clever by half, and always trying to figure some way to get away with something. Dean seems to be trying to inherit this mantle. On the other hand, there is ... Elmer Fudd. Not just a fool who always wants to shoot at helpless creatures; a deeply moral individual, conscious of his duty to society, who sees himself fighting not just a rabbit here or there, but large, malevolent forces which rule somewhere in the dark forest. As long as people don't worry too much about whether he is clever enough for the job, they find him deeply trustworthy in an emergency.
Maybe Clinton would have done fine after 9/11. He was certainly popular enough to win in 2000, and I think he did a pretty good job on foreign policy. Dean is struggling against the perception that he is a bright guy chatting about policy, and trying to get ahead. With his now-famous anger, including a series of photos on Drudge, he may be trying to show that he cares about right and wrong as much as anyone.
Slate has a nice piece saying Dean's recent attacks on Bush for not knowing enough about defence, and not doing enough for Americans in uniform, which might appear suicidal, are brilliant. There is no way to avoid these themes in these troubled times. That would be allowing Bush to continue to own them. To have any chance of beating Bush, Dean has to be tough and moralistic, and almost bluff through his own close-to-draft-dodging record by pure bluster. As, er, Bush did in 2000.
Update: Glenn Reynolds likes the suggestion by Jonathan Rauch that Dean is more like Clinton than he is like McGovern. This basically means: tough, flexible, not too much the intellectual or Hamlet-type to win.
Reynolds also says:
"At any rate, I'm not sure that Dean, if elected, would be as bad for the war on terror as Goldberg's post, sort of, implies, or that Dean's primacy in fact reflects a policy of surrender on the part of Democratic voters. Here's Dean's secret weapon in the general election: He's an angry jerk. Okay, he's not always a jerk, but he has his angry, jerky side. And that poses risks to his campaign that have been analyzed elsewhere.
"But in the current climate (heck, probably in most political climates) an angry jerk is a lot better than a wimp, and Dean doesn't come across as a wimp. Voters may conclude, and they may be right, that a President Dean would get angry at terrorists and respond appropriately, rather than rolling over and being a wimp. This, at any rate, is one reason why I'm not so sure the Dean / McGovern parallel that some people are drawing works."
That is what I was getting at (although Reynolds would probably not accept the reference to Elmer Fudd as an example of what the public wants). Being an angry jerk, or appearing to be one, can be taken as a sign of leadership qualities. (Aristotle even says so in the Ethics).
Example: Clinton consistently held that he had to move to the right on key issues in order to win, and thereby be in a position to carry out much of the Democratic agenda. He committed to welfare reform, which he ultimately carried out, and he was staunchly for capital punishment. He showed his commitment to capital punishment by travelling home to Arkansas, early in the 1992 campaign season, to make sure everyone knew he was not exercising his prerogative as Governor to commute a death sentence.
Ricky Lee Rector, the convicted murderer in this case, had shot himself after shooting his victims, and suffered severe brain damage. It was most unlikely that he had any real awareness of what was going on, and in such a case, even staunch advocates of the death penalty tend to argue that execution is mere slaughter rather than a punishment, and should be called off. Clinton made sure the execution went ahead in order to establish himself as a national candidate, and avoid Dukasis' mistake of being "soft" on capital punishment.
My theory is that being an "angry jerk" is even part of Dr. Phil's appeal. Under the charm and nice clothes of a big-city shrink or consultant is a Southern cracker, who might say something personal and rude. I was watching once when he said to a male guest, who admittedly was saying stupid things: "If this was radio, I'd be choking you now."
Prime Minister Chretien once was photographed choking a protester; his popularity in most of the country went up, not down.
|
