By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH – November 14, 2007
Introductory note: Picking up where we left off last
week, this column originally ran as my “TPJ No. 40,” on December 23,
2004. It is presented here as part of my occasional series of “Bush
re-runs,” in the run-up to the 2008 election. In that election, of
course, I feel that a key to a Democratic victory is to place George Bush and
his Presidency front and center as to what exactly is wrong with our great
nation, what it is absolutely essential to fix, and that only a Democratic
president, with a Democratic Congress, can accomplish that task. In this
column, just after the Second Presidency Stealing by Rove, et al, I continued
the consideration of the so-called “faith-based Presidency.” Since this
column was originally written, the role and function of this totally
unconstitutional Presidential concept has, if anything, become even more
threatening to the struggle to preserve U.S. Constitutional Democracy in the
face of the continued Georgite assault upon it. And so, with the
Georgites, the more things change the more they stay exactly the same, if not
more so. Thus let us turn to that column of 2004 (with some judicious
editing done on it here and there).
As I noted last week, in The New York Times Magazine of
October 17, 2004, Ron Suskind presented the most comprehensive picture yet of
George W. Bush’s concept of the “faith-based Presidency” and how it
operates. As I noted then, 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. There is no evidence that any of this
thinking pattern in the Bush brain, apparent IQ 92 or no, has changed since
2004.
The re-run of Part 1 of this two-part series, which appeared
last week, 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 Bush Theory of Governance 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 his/her/its existence, or affirm
that any ‘other’ listener got the instructions right. (In this, Bush
apparently has much in common with Pres. Ahmedinejad of Iran; see my “Short
Shot: Pres. Ahmedinejad and Pres. Bush: Connecting through God,” published on BuzzFlash
on Fri, 02/02/2007, http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/044;
see also: “Dr. J.'s Commentary: Pres. Ahmedinejad: Why all the Fuss, from the
Right?” BuzzFlash, Tue, 09/25/2007, 3:41pm. Steven Jonas, http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/076.)
Second, “faith-based” governance can mean that even if there is in fact no such
a “God” as described above, the person in authority who rules based on “faith,”
like Bush and his twin-separated-at-birth Ahmedinejad, truly believes that
there is, and that in making all the decisions of the office, he/she is
“carrying out God’s will.”
Most important here in terms of the nation’s policies and
actions, whether or not there is a God, or at least whether or not there is 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 actually coming
from a God, whatever he/she/it might be, the “God tells me” thinking process is
what is going on in the ruler’s own mind. Because that person is
convinced that their perceived thoughts are 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 what, given that there is a God, is objectively “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 as 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), the declaration of war (Bush’s “war on terror,”
self-, and not Congressionally, declared), or Congressionally-passed
legislation he doesn’t like but doesn’t want, for once reason or another, to
veto (dealt with through the entirely unconstitutional “Signing Statement”
process), Bush has just ignored both the process and the content required by
the Constitution and the traditional US Constitutional form of government and
governing.
In Bush’s mind he is “carrying out God’s purpose” and
whether that is objectively true or not, he has substituted his say-so for that
of the Constitution. (Of course, he has ignored the possibility that
“God’s Will” is following the requirement of the Constitution, just as
Evolution may be God’s way of creating species and species development, and God
may, in terms of “natural rights,” regard homosexuals as the equals of
heterosexuals in every way, but that is a matter for another day.) Bush
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.
(The latter is a word I do not throw around loosely.
Here is my short definition of it. ““Fascism is a politico-economic system in
which there is: total executive branch control of both the legislative and
administrative powers of government; no independent judiciary; no Constitution
that embodies the Rule of Law standing above the people who run the government;
no inherent personal rights or liberties; a single national ideology that first
demonizes and then criminalizes all political, religious, and ideological
opposition to it; and total corporate determination of economic, fiscal, and
regulatory policy.” [If you want to see my longer definitions,
please refer to my “The Political Junkies” columns of May 27, 2004 “On Fascism -- And The Georgites,” Jan 27,
2005 “Comparing George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler”,
and February 10, 2005, “The Georgite Version of ‘Freedom and
Democracy’.”])
This is what a “faith-based” Presidency really means.
At the time this column was originally written we had got a “faith-based”
leadership in the House of Representatives as well, for Tom DeLay had publicly
said that he also was “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. Once again, let me say that in my view this must become the
number one issue for the 2008 election, ahead even of Iraq or, God help us, Iran.