THE BLIND MAN DESCRIBES THE ELEPHANT:

Bush's Meandering Moral Compass (Peter Singer, March 25, 2004, LA Times)

Do Bush's statements and actions reflect a coherent, defensible ethic?

First, what does Bush think about the proper reach of the federal government? In his preelection memoir, "A Charge to Keep," he was eloquent about his support for states' rights, individual freedom and small government. He contrasted that with "a philosophy that seeks solutions from distant bureaucracies" and added, "I am a conservative because I believe government closest to the people governs best."

Again and again during the campaign he hammered that theme. On the "Larry King Show," in response to a question about a hypothetical state vote on gay marriage, he replied: "The states can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this states' issue."

Yet in office, Bush has done just the opposite of what he said he would do. The Patriot Act has given the federal government unprecedented powers over American citizens. Arguably, that legislation may be justified by the need to combat terrorism. But no such justification exists for Bush's support for a constitutional amendment to rule out gay marriage. Here, his stated reason for this proposal is to curb "judicial activism." And what about attempts by his attorney general to overturn Oregon's law permitting physician-assisted suicide and to fight against state decisions allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes? These changes were brought in at the ballot box, by the state's voters.

Next, take Bush's stance on taxes. Leading up to the 2000 election, he argued for a tax cut on the basis that the government was running a huge surplus, and the money should be given back to the taxpayers. Instead of government spending the money, he said, his preferred option was "to let the American people spend their own money to meet their own needs."

When the surplus evaporated and turned into a huge deficit, however, Bush did not reverse his arguments. Instead, he simply switched ground, defending a further tax cut on a completely new basis: that it would benefit the economy. But now a tax cut was not letting the American people spend their own money; it was letting this generation of Americans spend the money of future generations.

Finally, there is Bush's policy on the sanctity of human life. In August 2001, he announced that his administration would not allow federal funds to be used for research on stem cells if that funding could encourage the destruction of human embryos — even though there are more than 400,000 surplus embryos in laboratories across the country and the chances of most of them ever becoming children are close to zero.

In defending this policy, the president says he worries about "a culture that devalues life" and believes that, as president, he has "an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world." Yet under his command, the U.S. military has, by the most conservative estimates, caused the deaths of at least 4,000 civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq — the real number could easily be three times as high — and injured thousands more. Sometimes a target as insignificant as a single Taliban truck has brought American bombs down on a village, killing people sleeping in their homes.

Pretty shocking ignorance from the premier moral philosopher of the age. Except for single white males who sit in a computer cubicles surrounded by cheesecake photos of Ayn Rand, everyone accepts that the first purpose of government is to provide for the physical security of those who give up some measure of personal freedom in subjecting themselves to the state. The Patriot Act conforms precisely to this near universally accepted role of the federal government.

Second, if you believe that people can generally spend their own money more effectively than the government can spend it for them, then what does it matter if there's a deficit? Does the government's insatiable need for more money demonstrate that it is more efficient than the citizenry? Or does it not demonstrate the truth of the initial proposition?

Finally, it is innocent life that is to be protected, not that which is morally compromised. This why it is appropriate to put to death criminals and to make war on totalitarian regimes. Indeed, as the Declaration of Independ3ence says, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq had a moral duty to depose their rulers. They failing to do so, we did it for them.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 25, 2004 8:42 AM