Politics and Culture

Andrew Sullivan's a pretty smart guy so I must assume he's being a little dishonest when he heaps a fairly large tablespoon of hatred upon our president, George Bush, for an innocent statement and some interpretation from David Brooks (yes, that's right. I sprang for a subscription just for this post):

Let's analyze his fear:

It's more disturbing in a way than MoDo's fantasies or Frank Rich's tragedies. After four years of mounting, centrifugal chaos in a country he invaded on false pretenses, with no plan for victory, Bush is still "empowered" by a sense of religious mission and the aphrodisiac of the appearance of power. If you need any more convincing that Bush isn't merely not a conservative, but a tragi-comic version of what conservatism has long opposed, then read David Brooks's column. Here's a direct quote from the Decider himself:

"It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn’t exist."

As a very abstract theological principle, it's hard for a fellow Christian to disagree.

"False pretenses" is a serious charge. Is he saying that Bush knew he didn't have WMD and lied about it? What evidence (convincing to the reasonable, not just Sullivan's own inner-courtroom) does Sullivan have to prove that accusation?

As to the quote, our founding fathers agreed with Bush:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And, Sullivan, by his own admission, agrees with Bush. So, unless he’s calling the founding fathers, himself, and probably 80% of the nation “disturbed,” I don’t understand his outrage. To be upset with that quote, one must either:

1. Not believe people have a natural right to freedom.

2. Believe that people have a natural right to freedom, but instead of religion, feel that a politician should use a secular source like Star Trek for authority.

3. Believe it, and accept its theological rationale, but hate Bush a whole lot, which is where Sullivan falls.

It degenerates from there:

But, of course, as a political or historical principle, this is dangerous, delusional hogwash. There is a distinction between Burke theology and politics, a distinction between theory and practice: a distinction at the core of the very meaning of conservatism. The notion that free will or even human freedom is destined to be humanity's future, and that this destiny can be achieved by a Supreme Leader, is a function not of conservatism in any sense, but of a messianic, eschatological ideology. It's the most naive form of Whiggery on half-baked evangelical steroids. It is all the more disturbing to be allied with what can only be called Bush's attachment to the Fuhrerprinzip - the fascistic notion that all human affairs can be commanded and determined by a Great Decider. Our dumb luck, alas, is that our supreme leader is a trust-fund kid with a chip on his shoulder and zero understanding of history or war.

Wow! How did Sullivan get all that from that little quote-a quote that he agrees with?! And, how can Bush believe in both freedom and fascism? Wouldn't a sincere belief in an idea like Natural Rights prevent fascism? How is Bush being a "Great Decider" that believes "all human affairs can be commanded and determined" if he deposed a dictator and is now fighting the most evil people on Earth to allow Iraqis to govern themselves? Wouldn't that be the opposite-letting others decide for themselves? If he were really deranged, why hasn't he invaded easy targets like Venezuela and Cuba?

Helping the Iraqis enjoy freedom is indeed a reason (along with other, less messianic ones, like regional stability, preventing Iraq from becoming a terrorist base, countering Iran, etc.) Bush gives for our involvement. But does Sullivan want to say that only religion can provide one with the resolve to help others achieve freedom? Isn't that an insult to non-believers or people without messianic visions?

Sullivan's accusation also implies that Bush didn't engage Iraq to enrich his friends at Halliburton, steal Iraqi oil, or avenge his father, but because of a sincere desire to spread freedom. Anti-war people can't have it both ways. Either Bush is a deranged lunatic or a calculating egotist.

However, Bush didn't say all of that, did he? He didn't say that America has a duty to invade un-free countries. Bush is just giving his rationale for believing in universal freedom- a belief that Sullivan shares.

Or, is Sullivan referring to Brock's statement that "Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy?" Well, Mr. Sullivan, is history moving in the direction of allowing gay marriage? If you were president, would you do anything to bring about that circumstance?

Besides, saying that "history is moving in the direction of democracy" isn't the same as saying that it's an inevitability. If Bush really thought that, he wouldn't feel the need to do anything. He'd just sit back and pray. And, Sullivan probably thinks that's what he might as well do since societies as a whole, not leaders, determine the future.

Lastly, Sullivan's drive for conservative purity is ironic given his chastisement of Bush for religious zealotry. Sullivan seems to revere old conservatives as much as Bush does the prophets.

Amazingly, David appears to be taken in by this lunacy. He says that "only the whispering voice of Leo Tolstoy holds one back." Er: how about Burke? Or Aron? Or Tocqueville? Or Constant? Or Gibbon? Or any serious thinker about politics and history not infatuated with some ideology or eschatology? How about every conservative thinker who ever wrote a sentence? Tolstoy? Here's David:

Tolstoy believed great leaders are puffed-up popinjays. They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations — from the bottom up.

According to this view, societies are infinitely complex. They can’t be understood or directed by a group of politicians in the White House or the Green Zone. Societies move and breathe on their own, through the jostling of mentalities and habits. Politics is a thin crust on the surface of culture. Political leaders can only play a tiny role in transforming a people, especially when the integral fabric of society has dissolved.

If Bush's theory of history is correct, the right security plan can lead to safety, the right political compromises to stability. But if Tolstoy is right, then the future of Iraq is beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks and the understanding of any chief executive.

So, he left a few guys out-sue him. Sullivan said earlier that Bush should be faulted for not having a plan. Now, Sullivan is saying that a plan would be useless since plans, as Tolstoy asserted, are useless.

But that is not enough. It implies that Bush's ideological and theological flim-flam is, at worst, an irrelevance. But conservatives have always argued that such delusions are far, far more dangerous than they are irrelevant. This was Burke's deepest point. Such delusions actually destroy lives, liberties, societies, civilizations. And what has this messianic maniac in the White House done? He has set loose a fantastically murderous war in Iraq, he has sacrificed thousands of young Americans with the result not of restraining but empowering our enemies, he has done incalculable long-term damage to the country's fiscal standing, he has indirectly caused the massacre of tens of thousands of innocents, he has come close to wrecking the military of the United States, and he has robbed the United States of its long and hard-won record of humane and decent warfare.

Sullivan is right. Some delusions do wreck countries, communism being a good example. But is Sullivan arguing against any idealism at all? Should utilitarianism be a leader's (who are irrelevant, anyways) only guide?

Spreading Freedom doesn't seem like a delusion when it's been successfully replicated a great many times in a great many places. Or, are Iraqis different than Japanese, Germans, Koreans, Turks, and Lebanese? He should just say so.

Let's look at his accusations:

1. "He has set loose a fantastically murderous war in Iraq." I suppose Sullivan thinks Saddam was better for Iraq. Iraqis don't agree with him. What would have been a better course for Iraq, according to Sullivan?

2. "He has sacrificed thousands of young Americans with the result not of restraining but empowering our enemies" What does he mean by "empowering our enemies?" If fighting our enemies empowers them, then what should we do? Ignore them? When has that worked? Who would rather be fought than ignored?

3. "He has done incalculable long-term damage to the country's fiscal standing: It's actually very "calculable." The deficit isn't historically out of line with other deficits. But, ignoring the world would be cheaper, I suppose-in the short term.

4. "He has indirectly caused the massacre of tens of thousands of innocents." That would be very indirectly indeed. I suppose Miranda rights have indirectly caused great harm to innocents as well. And if we leave now, would war opponents be responsible for the massacres that would follow?

5. "He has come close to wrecking the military of the United States." I don't know what he means. Reenlistments are up. Recruitment is OK. If he's worried about the military being "wrecked" then increase military spending. A military that can't be used for fear of "wrecking it" is already wrecked.

6. "He has robbed the United States of its long and hard-won record of humane and decent warfare." This is the most hilarious of all. The people who think America is a inhumane country are either not very bright or would hate this country if we'd have baked every member of Al Qaida a cake.

This is not the work of a conservative statesman; it's the mark of a delusional fanatic. If you define liberalism broadly as the belief that human society is perfectible, that heaven can be created on earth by force of will, then Bush is one of the most recklesss enemies of conservatism who has ever held high office in America. It is a conservative duty to expose and restrain him from any more mischief in his final months. He has refused every olive branch toward sanity. He has balked at every face-saver. So he must be stopped. Above all else, he cannot be allowed to determine the future of this country's foreign policy in the Middle East. He has done enough damage already.

Man, talk about fanaticism. Isn't it the people who oppose the war because Iraq doesn't resemble Vermont, the ones guilty of wanting perfection? Is helping a country have a stable government the same of wanting a perfect world?

Remember folks: just because a person hates Bush, doesn't mean that he's right or that he makes any sense.