RETURN TO NEW
HOME PAGE
(POST-ELECTION)
Link Titles at Page Bottom
(this served as my Home Page for election issues until the election)
Every election matters.
Some elections matter
more than others.
Key example:
November 2, 2004.
“To announce that there must
be no criticism of the president,
or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is
morally treasonable
to the American public.”
Theodore Roosevelt
“History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.”
George W. Bush
First and foremost let's establish this much: NOTHING in this entire website in any way criticizes or belittles American troops who have already or may soon put their lives on the line in the service of their country. This includes some of my personal friends, people I've known for decades, whom I hope to know for decades more. They are doing their job: following orders from their Commander in Chief. For the limited purposes of these pages, I neither challenge nor even question any aspect of our armed forces operating to advance American interests. The many questions within that issue require extensive deliberation at another time. (Any specific statements or issues in this site that you believe imply otherwise should return to this fundamental disclaimer. I welcome your concerns.)
But regarding our Commander in Chief, especially his sending many of those troops into harm's way: with him I have many serious issues. Foremost, President Bush has sent our soldiers into Iraq for a cause—or a pretext—not only far less worthy and noble and clear-cut than what he asserts (and what many Americans apparently believe) but also, I fear, evidently tainted by his own personal, political, and commercial agenda.
As you and I don't have access to all the data, the many layers of dynamics here are probably too complex for most of us to sort through completely. Also, many choices come intertwined: a course of action undertaken responsibly and prudently, after in-depth rational analysis, may nonetheless create new problems and dangers; a reflex action, even if built on personal pettiness, dogma, and irrationality, may in fact yield some benefit. So I certainly don't presume to dictate exactly what we must do under whatever circumstances.
No one has all the answers on this. But our president seems particularly ill-equipped to evaluate the data. When Bob Woodward asked Mr. Bush to extrapolate a bit and speculate on how history might assess his actions,
“[Bush]
said, ‘History,’ and then he took his hands
out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his
hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, ‘History, we don’t
know. We’ll all be dead.’” |
This from a man who has the power to send many men and women to their own death: hundreds who have volunteered for military service, and many thousands innocently as civilians, including noncombatants, women and children, collateral damage in the country Mr. Bush invades.
And in terms of the tremendous moral and social complexities, Mr. Bush publicly acknowledges only this frighteningly simplistic worldview, which, of course, appeals to those who share it:
And this man—with this level of insight—has the power and the means to destroy nations.
Juggling these variables calls for a keen, penetrating mind, capable of assessing long- and short-term outcomes. As demonstrated in not only the above shallow remark, but many others as well, I worry over Mr. Bush's evident inability, or refusal, to integrate such concepts.
Mr. Bush has often responded vaguely and pedantically to the broad range of grays in the real world. It no longer surprises me when Mr. Bush relies on shallow rhetoric rather than reason, reflecting a preschooler's black-and-white mentality of good-guys and nasty villains, a Batman vs. Joker world. Mr. Bush's typical proclamations, especially those made off the cuff, do not display a mature, thoughtful adult's awareness of and respect for the ambiguities of life. When valid objections challenge certain of his proclamations and decisions that have been shown flawed and even blatantly irrational, literally bordering on delusional at points, he and many of his supporters offer only jingoism and platitudes in return. That's all a child's black-and-white mentality can comprehend. That's all a strictly dichotomous mind can tolerate. Thinking? Too much trouble.
President Clinton dodged issues regarding his adultery. But Mr. Clinton pales as an amateur compared to Bush. Our current president is the master of obfuscation, evasion, and non-answers.
In this embarrassing and precarious context, too often some (I emphasize some) of Mr. Bush's supporters seem unwilling to acknowledge the hypocrisy and the intellectual impotence of asserting, "We've got to support the president. We've got to all speak the same thing. No divergent views allowed. We forbid or reject all intelligent disagreement. We will not tolerate any behavior or statement that shows Mr. Bush less than noble, moral, and capable." (An open mind can understand why some Iraqi, and many in the region, have valid doubts and suspicions about the "freedom" and "democracy" that we claim to bring, as they see not only this dogmatic suppression of free, reasonable, and responsible speech, but also our free democratic government trying to censor images of our war dead.)
Too many such objections, however sincere and conscientious, show a failure to comprehend that one may strongly support the troops while opposing the president. This mindset reflects Mr. Bush's own inability or unwillingness to grasp and respect the tremendous complexities involved, or at least his refusal to acknowledge them publicly.
We may disagree on many points and perspectives. I believe these issues deserve far more attention than the occasional verbal and visual snapshots we get in the typical news report.
A key point: Some of Mr. Bush's supporters may in fact recognize and acknowledge many of his foibles and utter failings, and still see him as at least the more viable candidate for President this November. I can respect that. But I have yet to meet his supporters who will state outright (as I did regarding President Clinton), "I support him even though he does have these shortcomings a, b, and c. I regret that he did x and said y. It insults me intellectually and spiritually that he did z and insisted it was the only right action." From what I hear and read, too many of Mr. Bush's supporters do exactly what many of Mr. Clinton's supporters did post-Monica. The more vocal supporters simply deny, dodge, or at least refuse to acknowledge, their leader's failings and flaws, no matter how egregious. In this they do think and behave like their leader, which certainly correlates with the likelihood of supporting him no matter what facts come up. These persons seem to think: If I admit anything less than ideal, no matter how obvious the facts, the other side wins.
This all-or-nothing blindness clearly seems to characterize Mr. Bush himself; typically he adamantly refuses to acknowledge any legitimate data or arguments that don't fully support What He Wants To Do, most lethally in his (or Cheney's) determination to invade Iraq; no facts, and no reasoned counsel (e.g., from Colin Powell, before he stopped trying) would hinder his obsession. President Bush seems to forbid any such reality check that might undermine what he construes as "leadership."
I for one would see him, and
could respect him, as more of
a worthy leader if he would honestly admit his limitations,
his mistakes, and his errors that have
— in principle espoused a shallow,
jingoist, dogmatic self-righteousness, and
— in practice escalated
real-world disorder and danger, both short- and likely long-term.
Intelligent and open minds, sincere and devout hearts, will disagree on issues and values. Even though we'll both probably come away from the discussion with mostly the same positions, we can fine-tune our perspectives. And sometimes we do shift gears. Many of my own concerns and objections have evolved over the months. I often find something useful in a thorough and well-articulated discussion with persons of contrary views. I pick up some valid points from even Cal Thomas. But too often I've found pro-Bush responses to many points raised here consisting largely of hollow accusations of "unpatriotic, "un-American," or even "un-Christian." What would Theodore Roosevelt say about those who rely on such cheap labels?
I believe informed discussion exists among some Bush supporters somewhere, many of whom simply don't speak up as often, or perhaps as loudly, as their more pedantic and dogmatic colleagues. I've met a few, and I offer this to others who engage the discussion openly. Think of this as a repository of data and perspectives that honest, open-minded persons, of whatever persuasion, may find worth considering.
Thanks for visiting my site. Whomever you support for the presidency, for whatever reason, please do vote on November 2, 2004.
Chuck's 50 & DC Marathons Starting Line
UCSC/ACSC · YIA · AHS Class of 1974
Camp Wiregrass · Coral Gables Congregational Church
Concerts · Is There Anybody Out There? · George W. Bush
all images and text © chuck bryant
unless otherwise noted