March 16, 2003
EMPTY HEAD VS. EMPTY VESSEL:
Pliable Bush puppet of hawks (LINDA MCQUAIG, Mar. 16, 2003, Toronto Star)In an apparent attempt to come up with a guise other than warmonger, George W. Bush is being hastily repackaged as "deeply religious."Bush has always been officially described as "born again" - a useful device to explain the transformation from his early days (up to the age of 40) of heavy drinking and carousing.
But the notion that Bush is motivated by deep religious convictions is being pushed with such vigour these days by his supporters that one senses an orchestrated campaign - perhaps to prevent worldwide skepticism about the motives for the Iraq invasion from spreading to the U.S.
Some Americans may worry about an evangelical crusader controlling the world's biggest nuclear arsenal, but religion - even the fundamentalist variety - is generally considered a good thing in the U.S. Certainly, focusing on religion helps keep attention away from other more contentious motives for invading Iraq, such as oil or world domination.
So the media have been hyping Bush's alleged spirituality (including a Newsweek cover story on "Bush and God"), even as the president snubbed pleas for peace from world religious leaders and last week tested a 21,000-pound bomb in preparation for unloading it on people in Iraq. (Blessed are the bombed children.)
Of course, it's possible that Bush is deeply religious, whatever than means.
More likely, Bush is simply an empty vessel, a hollow shell, a person of weak character and limited life experience who is therefore highly susceptible to the control of a small, determined group of ideological hard-liners bent on asserting U.S. power more forcefully in the world.
In deference to Steven Martinovich, we've no desire to minimize the value of a career as a Canadian journalist, however, it seems fair to ask whether Ms McQuaig can match the life experience of some who's attended Yale and Harvard, run a couple companies, worked in the White House, been governor of a state whose economy is probably bigger than her country's, and run for and won the presidency of the United States. Given this description of her:
In a series of eloquent and increasingly strong books, McQuaig has made a case for preserving the Canadian welfare state in something like the form it has achieved since 1960. She has attacked, with increasing power, the arguments made against social democracy.
...we can at least say she's learned little from whatever sort of life she's led. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 16, 2003 1:24 PM
And besides which, I haven't noticed it being Bush's supporters who have been harping on his beliefs recently.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 16, 2003 1:50 PMShe has attacked, with increasing power, the arguments made against social democracy.
"increasing power" -- So that's what Leftists call it when they start to resort to ad hominem
or name calling.
It would also be intesting to hear what steps she has actually taken to make sure that a "social democracy" can actually work as advertised, but Leftists are more interested in talking about than doing.
I guess the "increasing power" refers to the drugs they have to give her to prevent her from foaming at the mouth. It seems to me that yet another dose is required.
Posted by: Peter at March 16, 2003 2:22 PMI hear she's singlehandedly keeping the loonie
from turning into the rapsodink.
One thing outsiders fail to understand about
American religion is that the labels (variously
misapplied as Fundamentalist, evangelical, holy
roller etc.) cover some deep differences.
It is true that some holy rollers anticipate and
even encourage Armageddon soon (sooner
than the alleged invasion of Iraq, anyway).
But Bush and his pals don't belong to that wing.
(See, Orrin, I did learn something from listening
to500 episodes of Garner Ted Anthony's
"Good News of the World Tomorrow.")
One wonders if Ms. McQuaig was even paying attention during the 2000 campaign, or the palmy days before 9/11 when what got political tempers going was the "faith-based" social services initiative.
Posted by: Joe at March 16, 2003 4:57 PMHarry:
Immanentizing the eschathon or whatever they call it is a sin as far as I recall.
Well, gee, why not? (If it makes Ms. McQuaig feel a bit better.)
These have been tough times for all of us, especially people like her (for whom, most likely, with Iraq liberated, Saddam gone, and Iraqi oil used to rebuild Iraq, they're about to get tougher).
Caritas....
OJ
You forgot to mentioned trained jet fighter pilot.
OJ: Yes, unless my sputtering theology is off, only Satanists and absolute loons (but I repeat myself) see no error in attempting to immanentize the Eschaton. I'll spare the theology and note that it's deeply unlikely for a host of reasons that Bush is trying to force God into playing His hand.
Posted by: Chris at March 16, 2003 10:53 PMI'm appalled that you would criticize Canadian journalism!
Orrin, You can't believe how much I despise Linda McQuaig.
A tangentially-related aside:
Yale Law professors are, as a rule, idiotic as they charge their President to be:
">http://balkin.blogspot.com/
(see Monday, March 17 post).
Steve:
It's long past time to move to NH and sign on with the Union-Leader.
If they hire me, I'll go, but not before :-)
Posted by: Steve Martinovich at March 17, 2003 3:33 PM