A Second Term: The Second Coming?
Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, wrote a fascinating piece for yesterday's New York Times Magazine called "Without a Doubt" (link via Silt, via my well-read neighbor, Mr. Rittenhouse). It's about the role of faith in the Bush White House—the kind of faith, as George Seaton (and Kris Kringle, in Miracle on 34th Street) put it, that is "believing in things when common sense tells you not to."
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a president with faith *and* common sense. A guy who goes with his gut, but only after careful analysis. I've made several leaps of faith in my life—buying a house when the numbers didn't add up, because I felt like there was something around the bend that would make it all work out; agreeing to bear a child when I wasn't entirely sure I could endure childbirth, much less parenthood; moving to new cities where I didn't know a single person, without a job and with only a couple hundred dollars in my pocket—so I'm comfortable with a president who occasionally says, "I know this seems odd, but it feels right."
However, it's difficult for me to get behind someone who says, "Look, I know I'm right, and I'm not going to justify it for you" about every decision he makes. Especially someone who clearly ignores—even derides—evidence, analysis, and debate. There's room for faith in the White House, for belief in a higher power, for prayer, for instincts, for going with your gut. But there must also be room—a whole floor would be nice—for discussion, deliberation, and examining opposing views. It's OK to admit that there are things that you don't know—that you cannot know—but you must also make an effort to learn what you can. As President, it's your responsibility to be informed.
Vaara selected a particularly shocking quote from the article to highlight on his site, one in which a Bush aide accused Suskind of being part of "the reality-based community." Several other quotes from the article caught my attention, including this one:
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
It's a lengthy piece, but worth the time. Whether you consider yourself religious, spiritual, agnostic, or atheistic, please also consider that the word "faith," as used by the Bush administration, might not mean what you think it does—and that having the Messiah running your country might not be the best thing for the world.
Comments (8)
I thought the article was great as well. Though I would have liked more emphasis on this supposed 'civil war' in the Republican party. What could cause that? Is it the fissure between social and fiscal conservatives? Is it something about Bush and his leadership style?
Posted by Jack Herrington | October 19, 2004 11:43 AM
Posted on October 19, 2004 11:43
Good point -- I wish he'd elaborated on the schism as well. I think I ended up assuming that the war would be between the religious right and the libertarian right (basically what you describe: the social conservatives vs. the fiscal conservatives).
Posted by Lori | October 19, 2004 11:49 AM
Posted on October 19, 2004 11:49
I'm not sure what I would like to happen here. An ultra-religious party could be very scary as well. I think in some regards they are being held in check by the libertarian side.
Honestly, it looks like we just have to create a massive education campaign on the value of the separation of church and state.
If GW gets in again we are in for big trouble. Even if we impeach him there will be Cheney, who is just plain evil.
Posted by Jack Herrington | October 19, 2004 4:40 PM
Posted on October 19, 2004 16:40
<rant>
I'll take humility over arrogance anyday.
People who are so devoid of common sense as to assume that they can know the mind of God, not only scare the hell out of me, but insult the very sentiment of what it means to hold something sacred. The very sentiment which they spend so much of their energy insisting they defend.
It is one thing to act out of faith because you believe you are doing what is right for yourself.
It is a stickier but unavoidable proposition that a leader will enevitably have to rely on faith to make decisions effecting those who have chosen she/he to govern. It is quite ludicris to claim that you act on behalf of God in directing the lives of others, let alone an entire nation.
In Christianity I believe that is known as idolitry, a particularly grandiose and heinous form.
</rant>
Posted by Stephen | October 19, 2004 5:08 PM
Posted on October 19, 2004 17:08
Perhaps my favorite quote from the article is the closing one, which speaks to your concerns I think, Stephen:
< -- begin excerpt -- >
Can the unfinished American experiment in self-governance -- sputtering on the watery fuel of illusion and assertion -- deal with something as nuanced as the subtleties of one man's faith? What, after all, is the nature of the particular conversation the president feels he has with God -- a colloquy upon which the world now precariously turns?
That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.
"Faith can cut in so many ways," he said. "If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.
"Where people often get lost is on this very point," he said after a moment of thought. "Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want."
And what is that?
"Easy certainty."
< -- end excerpt -- >
Posted by Lori | October 19, 2004 5:23 PM
Posted on October 19, 2004 17:23
One guest I heard on Air America, who spoke of religion from her own religious background, called GW's faith simplistic in that it was unquestioning.
Personally I would like to hear more Christians questioning their faith and being critical of it. But far too often I hear questioning likened to blasphemy.
Posted by Jack Herrington | October 19, 2004 7:31 PM
Posted on October 19, 2004 19:31
Jack has a good point. After all Protestantism is rooted in deciphering for one's self what the meaning of the Christian Bible is, not a blind reliance on the leaders of the Church.
I truley believe that the majority of American Christians are more nuanced and questioning than those who get the most attention by shouting dire pronouncements, and unwavering pledges of allegiance.
Maybe, I'm living in a fantasy world but I think it is very much the same with the ratio of liberals verses conservatives.
Conservatives, however do a better job of showing up than liberals. Conservatives are motivated by the fear of losing what they have, when it's gone it's gone. So, by God you's better get out the guns.
The liberal is motivated by the propect of a brighter tomorrow and there's always going to be another tomorrow. So, do I really have to get out of bed?
But I think this election will convince the usually uninvolved liberal to get out of bed and save the world, maybe just this once.
Posted by Stephen | October 20, 2004 11:14 AM
Posted on October 20, 2004 11:14
Liberals are definitely motivated. A number of folks in my office are politically active where they never have been before, and friends and relatives that I talk to are also spending a lot of their time now calling people and aiding in the election process.
Posted by Jack Herringt | October 20, 2004 6:12 PM
Posted on October 20, 2004 18:12