|
|||||||||||||||||
RELATED LINKSInternal LinksGrants to: Profiles: Related stories:
Cursor.orgMediaTransparency.org sponsor More stories by David Domke US Press credibility at historic low Media Transparency writersAndrew J. Weaver FundometerEvaluate any page on the World Wide Web against our databases of people, recipients, and funders of the conservative movement. |
ORIGINAL RESEARCHDavid Domke George W. Bush and the gospel of freedom and libertyOn the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, George W. Bush quoted Psalm 23, declared the day's events to be the opening salvo in a cosmic struggle against evil, and vowed that the nation would "go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world." Nine days later, before Congress and an estimated television audience of 82 million Americans -- the largest ever for a political event -- the president issued these powerful words: "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." These statements, and many similar ones since, have spurred a heated public debate about this president's religious beliefs and language: standard and appropriate for a president, or unusual and dangerous? The former, say many administration supporters and officials, who consistently have claimed that Bush's mixture of religion and politics is nothing new in the presidency. For example, Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the Catholic journal First Things, told The Washington Post last September, "There is nothing that Bush has said about divine purpose that Abraham Lincoln did not say. This is as American as apple pie." Similarly, Michael Gerson, Bush's primary speechwriter during his first term, told a group of journalists in December that the president's outlook is "not new" and "I don't believe that any of this is a departure from American history." Some evidence supports their case. Only one presidential inaugural address, George Washington's second, makes no reference to a divine presence. Similarly, Bush's common emphasis on freedom and liberty trumpets principles so firmly planted in American national identity that they are enshrined in more than 500 literal symbols, according to Brandeis University historian David Hackett Fischer. In emphasizing a higher power along with freedom and liberty, Bush is, as his supporters contend, emphasizing ideas that are as mainstream as one will find in U.S. presidential rhetoric. That is not the whole story, however. For while Bush's emphasis on God, freedom and liberty are not uncommon for the presidency, the manner in which he strategically uses these ideas for political advantage is unusual for his office, perhaps even unprecedented. Consider this: In his recent second-term inaugural address, Bush mentioned a higher power seven times and used the words freedom or liberty, in some form, 49 times. Even if such beliefs are genuine (and I don't doubt that they are), such a heavy presidential emphasis is strongly suggestive that there is a strategy behind the words -- a wholly reasonable interpretation given this administration's long and documented history of political calculus. For example, the White House in early February made official what had been a fait accompli in its first term by naming top political strategist Karl Rove deputy chief of staff, giving him control over policies related to national security, domestic policy, economic policy and homeland security -- i.e., almost everything. It was Rove who drove out policy heavyweight and University of Pennsylvania professor John DiIulio after less than a year as director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Following his departure, DiIulio characterized the administration as "the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis" for their strategy-always-trumps-policy approach. To be clear, though, an obsession with political tactics begins at the top in this White House. Recently released recordings by friend Doug Wead show Bush in the late 1990s as he contemplated a run for the presidency -- with a foremost concern about how to woo evangelicals while not turning away the broader public. Which is where freedom and liberty come in. These noble principles have broad appeal in America -- after all, who doesn't support the ideas of freedom and liberty? -- while at the same time occupying a sacrosanct position in the worldview of many Christian conservatives. In the eyes of evangelicals and fundamentalists, the desire to live out the "Great Commission" of Christ, in the book of Matthew, to "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" has become intertwined with support for the principles of political freedom and liberty. In particular, the individualized religious liberty present in the United States (particularly available historically for European-American Protestants) is something that religious conservatives long to extend to other cultures and nations. In the 1980s, fundamentalist preacher and leader Jerry Falwell argued that the dissemination of Christianity could not be carried out if other nations were communist -- a perspective that provided a good reason to support Ronald Reagan's combination of a strong U.S. military, conservative foreign policy and the spreading of individual freedoms. In that era, Falwell told his flock they could "vote for the Reagan of their choice." Falwell echoed this perspective in 2004, saying in the July 1 issue of his e-mail newsletter and on his Web site, "For conservative people of faith, voting for principle this year means voting for the re-election of George W. Bush. The alternative, in my mind, is simply unthinkable." The certitude in the support for Bush by Falwell (and by many other religious-right leaders, including James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer) is emblematic of Christian conservatives' confidence that their vision of the world is the vision of the world -- entirely true and without flaw. Such an outlook inevitably fosters a conception of their beliefs as providing what religion scholar Bruce Lawrence terms "mandated universalist norms" that cross cultural contexts and therefore, as the biblical command makes clear, are to be shared with all nations. At the center of these norms for religious conservatives are U.S. conceptions of freedom and liberty. After Sept. 11, these values gained a heightened resonance among all Americans -- and the ever-strategic Bush administration capitalized with a gospel of freedom, liberty and God. It is a message embraced by religious conservatives. Consider the perspective of Richard Land, president of the ethics and religious liberty arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's predominant religious fundamentalist organization with 16 million members, more than 42,000 churches and considerable political influence. Land, a graduate of Princeton and Oxford and an adviser to the White House on the intersection of religion and politics, said in a 2003 interview: "The president believes America has a purpose in the world, and that purpose is to fan the flame and light the candle of freedom. I believe that he believes -- as do I and many evangelicals -- that we have a responsibility to help people experience the freedom that is their God-given right." Such beliefs, and the presidential rhetoric that encourages and sustains them, translate into real political capital. In the late 1980s, according to the Pew Research Center, white evangelical Protestants were evenly split between Democrats and Republicans in political party self-identification. In 2004, white evangelicals were more likely to self-identify with Republicans than Democrats, 54 to 21 percent -- and in the election Bush received nearly 80 percent of this group's vote. This pro-GOP and pro-Bush outlook particularly matters because when the citizenry is sliced by race and religion, white evangelicals represent the largest voting bloc at more than one-fourth of the electorate. Machiavellian? Perhaps. Mayberry-ian? No. An emphasis on freedom, liberty and God may represent the holy trinity of political strategy in America. It's also disingenuous for this president. Most especially, it obscures the underlying truth that the Bush administration is determined to define what counts as freedom and liberty and who will have the privilege to experience it. Consider two points: First, it is only a short step from talking about God, freedom and liberty to suggesting that that the U.S. government is doing God's work. For example, in a press conference in 2003 shortly after Saddam Hussein was captured, Bush declared that "justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift" -- freedom and liberty -- "from the Almighty to the people of Iraq." And in the final presidential debate last October, Bush said, "I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty." Claims that the U.S. government and military are doing God's work may appeal to many Americans, but it frightens those who might run afoul of administration wishes-cum-demands. This is particularly so when one considers how declarations of God's will have been used by European-Americans in past eras as rationale for subjugating those who are racially and religiously different, most notably Native Americans, Africans, Chinese and African Americans. Indeed, religion scholar R. Scott Appleby in 2003 declared that the administration's omnipresent emphasis on freedom and liberty functions as the centerpiece for "a theological version of Manifest Destiny." If so, one must note the risk of repeating today what previous versions of Manifest Destiny did in the past: unduly emphasizing the norms and values of white, religiously conservative Protestants at the expense of those who will not or cannot conform. This concern, in part, prompted more than 200 U.S. seminary and religious leaders last October to sign a petition condemning what they called a "theology of war" in the administration's convergence of God and nation in the campaign against terrorism. Second, the president's proclamations about freedom and liberty are contradicted by several administration policies that go far in restricting the actual liberty of Americans. One of these is the president's support for a constitutional amendment to deny homosexuals a freedom that all heterosexuals enjoy -- the right to enter into a state-sanctioned marriage. Another is the administration's detaining of U.S. citizens designated as "enemy combatants" in the campaign against terrorism for unlimited time without an opportunity to face one's accusers. And yet another is the administration's efforts to control citizens' medical decisions -- from stem-cell research to Terri Schiavo. The president and administration have yet to articulate how their lofty rhetoric about freedom and liberty meets these contradictory realities. More than three years ago, on Sept. 20, 2001, the president spoke to a nation desperate for his leadership. Among his words were these: "I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Indeed. We ask the same of you, Mr. President. sign in, or register to email stories or comment on them.
|
MORE ORIGINAL RESEARCHBill Berkowitz PERC receives Templeton Freedom Award for promoting 'enviropreneurs'Right Wing foundation-funded anti-environmental think tank grabbing a wider audience for 'free market environmentalism' On the 15th anniversary of Terry Anderson and Donald Leal's book "Free Market Environmentalism" -- the seminal book on the subject -- Anderson, the Executive Director of the Bozeman, Montana-based Property and Environment Research Center (PERC - formerly known as the Political Economy Research Center) spoke in late-January at an event sponsored by Squaw Valley Institute at the Resort at Squaw Creek in California. While it may have been just another opportunity to speak on "free market environmentalism" and not the kickoff of a "victory tour," nevertheless it comes at a time when PERC's ideas are taking root.
Bill Berkowitz Neil Bush of Saudi ArabiaDuring recent visit, President’s brother describes the country as a 'kind of tribal democracy' In late February, only a few days after Saudi Arabia beheaded four Sri Lankan robbers and then left their headless bodies on public display in the capital of Riyadh, Neil Bush, for the fourth time in the past six years, showed up for the country's Jeddah Economic Forum. The Guardian reported that Human Rights Watch "said the four men had no lawyers during their trial and sentencing, and were denied other basic legal rights." In an interview with Arab News, the Saudi English language paper, Bush described the country as "a kind of tribal democracy."
Bill Berkowitz Newt Gingrich's back door to the White HouseAmerican Enterprise Institute "Scholar" and former House Speaker blames media for poll showing 64 percent of the American people wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances Whatever it is that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has come to represent in American politics, the guy is nothing less than fascinating. One day he's espousing populist rhetoric about the need to cut the costs of college tuition and the next day he's talking World War III. One day he's claiming that the "war on terror" may force the abridgement of fundamental first amendment rights and the next he's advancing a twenty-first century version of his Contract with America. At the same time he's publicly proclaiming how "stupid" it is that the race for the presidency has already started you know that he's trying to figure out how to out finesse Rudy, McCain and Romney for the nomination. And last week, when Fox News' Chris Wallace cited a poll showing that 64 percent of the public would never vote for him, he was quick to blame those results on how unfairly he was treated by the mainstream media back in the day.
Bill Berkowitz American Enterprise Institute takes lead in agitating against IranDespite wrongheaded predictions about the war on Iraq, neocons are on the frontlines advocating military conflict with Iran After doing such a bang up job with their advice and predictions about the outcome of the war on Iraq, would it surprise you to learn that America's neoconservatives are still in business? While at this time we are not yet seeing the same intense neocon invasion of our living rooms -- via cable television's news networks -- that we saw during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, nevertheless, a host of policy analysts at conservative think tanks -- most notably the American Enterprise Institute -- are being heeded on Iran by those who count - folks inside the Bush Administration.
Bill Berkowitz After six years, opposition gaining on George W. Bush's Faith Based InitiativeUnmentioned in the president's State of the Union speech, the program nevertheless continues to recruit religious participants and hand out taxpayer money to religious groups With several domestic policy proposals unceremoniously folded into President Bush's recent State of the Union address, two pretty significant items failed to make the cut. Despite the president's egregiously tardy response to the event itself, it was nevertheless surprising that he didn't even mention Hurricane Katrina: He didn't offer up a progress report, words of hope to the victims, or come up with a proposal for moving the sluggish rebuilding effort forward. There were no "armies of compassion" ready to be unleashed, although it should be said that many in the religious community responded to the disaster much quicker than the Bush Administration. In the State of the Union address, however, there was no "compassionate conservatism" for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bill Berkowitz Frank Luntz calls Republican leadership in Washington 'One giant whining windbag'On the outs with the GOP, legendary degrader of discourse is moving to California He doesn't make great art; nothing he does elevates the human spirit; he doesn't illuminate, he bamboozles. He has become expert in subterfuge, hidden meanings, word play and manipulation. Frank Luntz has been so good at what he does that those paying close attention gave it its own name: "Luntzspeak."
Bill Berkowitz Spooked by MoveOn.org, conservative movement seeks to emulate liberal powerhouseFueled with Silicon Valley money, TheVanguard.org will have Richard Poe, former editor of David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine as its editorial and creative director As Paul Weyrich, a founding father of the modern conservative movement and still a prominent actor in it, likes to say, he learned a great deal about movement building by closely observing what liberals were up to in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Bill Berkowitz Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action jihadFounder and Chair of the American Civil Rights Institute scouting five to nine states for new anti-affirmative action initiatives Fresh from his most recent victory -- in Michigan this past November -- Ward Connerly, the Black California-based maven of anti-affirmative action initiatives, appears to be preparing to take his jihad on the road. According to a mid-December report in the San Francisco Chronicle, Connerly said that he was "exploring moves into nine other states."
Bill Berkowitz Tom Tancredo's missionThe Republican congressman from Colorado will try to woo GOP voters with anti-immigration rhetoric and a boatload of Christian right politics These days, probably the most recognizable name in anti-immigration politics is Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo. Over the past year, Tancredo has gone from a little known congressman to a highly visible anti-immigration spokesperson. "Tancredo has thoroughly enmeshed himself in the anti-immigration movement and with the help of CNN talk show host Lou Dobbs, he has been given a national megaphone," Devin Burghart, the program director of the Building Democracy Initiative at the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based civil rights group, told Media Transparency.
Bill Berkowitz Institute on Religion and Democracy slams 'Leftist' National Council of ChurchesNew report from conservative foundation-funded IRD charges the NCC with being a political surrogate for MoveOn.org, People for the American Way and other liberal organizations If you prefer your religious battles sprinkled with demagoguery, sanctimoniousness, and simplistic attacks, the Institute on Religion and Democracy's (IRD) latest broadside against the National Council of Churches (NCC) certainly fits the bill.
|
|||||||||||||||
Bush, God and The Media, also by David Domke
Printer friendly
