Two Bushes are Better than One or The Lemon Did Not Fall Near the Tree.
Before proceeding to Part II of my essay on ‘Anti-Semitism and
Anti-Americanism’ for which I am committed (see the February 17
article) I think it worth while discussing the Bushes.
Recent analysis has compared the two President Bushes policies. The
first Bush administration’s policies have been called ‘Traditionalist’
while the second Bush administration’s policies have been
‘Transformationalists’.
Bush pere is represented first by Brent Scowcroft, former General and
former Director of the National Security Council (NSC), and mentor of
Dr. Condoleezza Rice. He is co-author of the memoirs of Bush pere and
opponent of Bush fils in the war in Iraq. Secondly is Colin Powell,
former General and former Director of the NSC and during the Bush fils
administration former Secretary of State, who resigned. Before the war
he suggested to Bush fils that invading Iraq would result in owning it
and being be required to pay for fixing it. These policy analysts and
experts have been named as the ‘Traditionalists’.
The Bush fils group is represented by three men: Vice President Dick
Cheney (no one apparently calls him by his Christian name Richard),
former Chief of Staff of the unelected President Gerald Ford,
Congressman elected five times (his state Wyoming is so small it has
more Senators that Congressmen), Secretary of Defense for Bush
pere, awardee of the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush pere, and
CEO of the reconstruction corporation active in Iraq named Halbitron.
He has the largest national security staff of any previous Vice
President and of most previous Presidents – his Chief of Staff Lewis
‘Scooter’ Libby is considered the equivalent of an Assistant to the
President and the Director of the NSC. Cheney, not ‘Scooter’, has been
referred to as an 800 pound gorilla. Cheney is also known for his
humor; he noted that his friend Don Rumsfeld has not made any progress
in thirty years still being Secretary of Defense. We do not know
whether he thought it was humorous when James Fallows suggesting before
the war that America consider inviting Iraq to become the fifty first
state (in the Atlantic Monthly, November 2002). According to the New
York Times he is being considered as the Master of Ceremony to the 2006
Oscars (March 7, 2005).
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense twice, the
first time by the same unelected President noted above (both possibly
American records), Special Envoy to the Middle East (during that
mission America escaped from Lebanon), awardee of the Presidential
Medal of Freedom by the same unelected President for which he was also
Chief of Staff, U.S. Ambassador to N.A.T.O., Congressman elected
four times, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program, Chairperson
of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and C.E.O. of two
Fortune 500 companies.
And last and apparently least Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State,
former Director of NSC (the formal title is Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs - this President during her term as
director of the NSC, in fact lost his election but was nonetheless
inaugurated as President) and Provost of Stanford University. This
group has been named as the ‘Transformationalists’.
(I have used the terms ‘pere’ and ‘fils’ for father and son
respectively and could have used the Americanism Senior and Junior
respectively, but the French seemed more elegant. Using the more usual
initial “H.” to distinguish the two Bushes always seemed confusing to
this author and he is a natural English speaker. Since the French and
Americans are in disagreement over the very issue discussed here
perhaps using the French can be considered the beginning of a Peace
process. (I will discuss the policy differences shortly.) That the
Americans and the French are talking the same talk about Lebanon
regarding Syria is almost a miracle. What could be next – Palestine or
Iraq? I do not actually think the problems of either the Palestinians
or Iraqis are sufficiently appreciated by the French. The Lebanese are
not French but enough of them speak French, despite with a funny
accent, to impress President Jacques Chirac. These Lebanese French
speakers do not include the significant Shit’ite minority, perhaps 40%
of the population – neither those affiliated with Hizbollah; the
terrorist organization that favor Syria and the largest party in the
Lebanese Parliament nor those affiliated with Amal, the non-Terrorist
organization that does not favor Syria. The French speakers in Lebanon
are like those from Montreal who also speak with a funny accent and
were previously favored by President and General Charles De Gaulle. My
son you lived in Paris and Montreal and speaks Parisian French and
Montreal French fluently (but not the Lebanese kind) has told me that
the French Montreal language, especially in regards to baseball
terminology [there was a baseball team when he lived there – the
Montreal Expos] was truly hilarious.)
Since I am a theologian rather than a political scientist I would call
the ‘Traditionalists’ the party of the High Priesthood. The High
Priest’s function was to teach and continue the tradition. The
political traditionalists believe their function as Foreign Policy
experts was to continue the previous policy assuming it was working.
The ‘Transformationalists’ believe their function is to transform
policy – to transform the tradition. Strangely enough they also call
themselves Conservatives of unique type called ‘neo’. According to
Irwin Stelzer in a recent book entitled ‘The Neo-con Reader’ this may a
‘movement’, a ‘persuasion’, a ‘school of thought’, a ‘strain of
thought’, or an ‘attitude’; but not a religion; confusing to a
theologian. The ‘Transformationalists’ position is equivalent to the
position of Prophet in theological terms. The Prophet rejected the
existing tradition, ‘knowing’ it to be sinful and created a new one.
Some claimed the prophet was returning to an older tradition rejected
only the current variation. Changing the tradition was then and now
dangerous. That is why, as we all now, Prophets died before their time,
often assassinated. I once claimed they were killed by the god of
mercy, due to their changes being by themselves very dangerous to the
people.
My colleague Robert A. Juhl, another ‘Speaking Freely’ correspondent helped my understanding by asking whether Bush fil was a dimwitted ‘Bumpkin’ or a ‘competent strategist’? His conclusion is that it is the ‘neo-cons’ who are the ‘Bumpkins. Bush fil captured them for his own purposes. It is neither interesting nor surprising that Dr. Condoleezza Rice felt that Bush fil ‘is more strategic than any other president I have dealt with’. She may believe that his strategizing comes from a ‘higher power’. As a theologian I, of course have significant problems with that concept. Apparently General Scowcroft, not a theologian; stated there is a problem with those beliefs ‘they can get you into traps in which the ends justify the means’. He stated further that ‘if you believe you are pursuing absolute good then it is a sin to depart from it’. Perhaps the General is a secret theologian. Is Bush fil a ‘true’ prophet or a ‘false’ prophet (see more on that distinction in a moment)? There is one inconsistency in Condoleezza’s references to Bush fil, she stated to her staff that ‘your first responsibility is to staff the president. If that means the president got a paper and he wanted it in 12-point type and it is in 10-point type, it’s your job to go fix that.’ That would appear to be a Freudian slip. (I find it difficult to refer to this very wise person with a Ph.D. whom I do not personally know as ‘Condy’ as everyone seems to do.) (All the above quotes from Scowcroft and Condoleezza are from David J. Rothkopf, March-April 2005, Foreign Policy.)
As a theologian I am reminded of the snake who tempted Eve towards the
infamous Tree in the famous Garden.
The danger with Prophets is that they seek change and start or end with a Judgment Day and that always becomes the Apocalypse. Apocalypses for those who have seen the movie are not fun to the participantees, although if one believes Robert Duvall (the one with the cowboy hat in the movie) it is fun to the participants. Why Prophets, those who radically want to change the world, always start out by joining the Culture of Death and bringing Earth into Heaven as immediately as is possible is unclear, perhaps it is genetic?
Some would claim that Prophets may be heretics if they turn out to be
false Prophets. Unfortunately whether they were true or false Prophets
can only be determined after the fact. In the olden of days the Prophet
Jeremiah conflicted with a Prophet named Hananiah. When both were alive
there was no way to determine who was the ‘True’ Prophet and who was
the ‘False’ Prophet. The prophet Hananiah died only a couple of months
after debating the prophet Jeremiah. That made it obvious that
Jeremiah was the ‘True’ Prophet and Hananiah was the ‘False’ Prophet.
There are, in theory, other ways to determine truth and falsity, but
not as dramatic as in that Old Testament story (Jeremiah chapter 28).
Dr. Henry Kissinger a former Harvard Professor, former Director
of the NSC and former Secretary of State (to the only President of the
United States to have resigned under fire) and Consultant since his
retirement decades ago, was the mentor of all the above (except
Jeremiah and Bush fil). His disciples created both positions, the
‘Traditionalists’ and the ‘Transformationalists’; given the context he
is almost god-like.
It is not surprising that the ‘Transformationalists’ are more
often than not Secretaries of Defense, like Secretary Rumsfeld,
twice who was also Chairman of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat
Commission and Dick Cheney another former Secretary of Defense. Can
anyone imagine either of them as High Priests? They are always white
men though not necessarily WASP’s. Is it surprising that both of the
representatives of the ‘Traditionalists’, Scowcroft and Powell (the
latter also known as ‘bullet proof’) were former American Generals.
Generals are familiar and knowledgably with war and its aftermath –
death? These Generals did not just lead men to death but were planners,
planning an apocalypse, even if a local one. They understood.
The ‘Traditionalists’ are more often Secretaries of State (Foreign
Affairs in more elegant English). The last three American Secretaries
of State were: Madeleine Albright not only the first woman to hold that
position but a half Jew who seemingly did not know of her Jewish roots
before accepting that position; Colin Powell, an African American, and
Condoleezza Rice, an Hispanic Women. Women and people of color having
more often experienced discrimination may be more sensitive to others
pain. Could these be thought as High Priests? (The idea that a
High Priest could be a women or person of color is particularly
appealing to those of us in favor of liberty.) Sometimes however
they become aggressive as a defense reaction to their sensitivity. Some
(although not I) have claimed that Jews followed the shepherd-prophet
into the apocalypse of Auschwitz. Some further claim that Israeli’s
have reacted with a warrior-like David syndrome aggressively.
The position of Director of the National Security Council is more
ambiguous. (Recall that both Generals Scowcroft and Powell were
Director’s of the NSC). Whose security are we concerned with? In my
country of residence it means protection against suicide bombers. In
America, my birthplace it may have a more aggressive personality. Let
us not forget that Col. Oliver North worked for the NSC. Condoleezza is
regularly and consistently known as an unofficial member of the Bush
fil’s family. The NSC (although no longer Condoleezza) are
‘infallible’; there are no constitutional limits to its power, its
members including critically its Director are not approved by the
Senate, in fact are not required to answer congressional questions.
It might be worth reviewing and contrasting a European, particularly a
French perspective on the ‘Transformationalists’ position. A French
analyst suggested five area of difference: Containment which worked for
the cold war as against regime change; second regime change in fact was
negative to the war against terror; third Americans are not spreading
justice when they allow poverty, inequality and the degradation of the
ecosystem; fourth human rights have been lost in several ways – relying
on authoritarian states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the use of
Guantanamo as a prison camp outside of American constitutional rules
and the horrific events in Abu Ghraib; and finally did the messenger –
war- not destroy the message (Justin Vaisse in Brookings Institute
March 7, 2005).
Historians and Theologians know of the ‘Law of Unintended Results’. Not
being a Prophet, despite my namesake (not even liking them for
there Unintended and perhaps even Intended Results) I cannot predict
what would have happened to the Bush fils’ concept of Foreign Policy
had Osama not arranged for September 11, except that it would have been
different. (The same is true if the Bush pere administration had not
had to face Saddam and his occupation of Kuwait.) However we can see
the Unintended Results: Afghanistan has had elections, Iraq has had
elections, Saudi Arabia has had what they consider elections, Egypt has
announced what they intend to consider an election (according to Tamara
Cofman Wittes Mubarak will remain the Pharaoh with his son as heir
apparent – she even compared Mubarak to Gerry Ford, America’s unelected
President – Brookings Institute, March 7, 2005), Lebanon may soon be
free of Syria and Libya gave up its WMD’s. It is difficult to place the
elections in Palestine as part of these Unintended Results (although
many in fact have) unless one claims that the invasion of Iraq and the
defeat of Yassar Arafat’s friend and ally Saddam Hussein contributed to
Arafat’s death through shock.
How would America and Israel react to democracy breaking out all over -
in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan? American experts in
the State Department personnel worry about states spinning out of
control. At best Israel might react by having a relationship with these
new democracies similar to that of the French American relationship.
They will consider that if Syria has a bloodless revolution (an
Orange-Green one) or even a blood filled revolution but afterwards
refrains from supporting Hamas and the Islamic Jihad and shipping
missiles to Hizbollah in a positive light. To a theologian if peace
were to break out all over – not the same as democracy – this would be
a reverse apocalypse.
What is clear is that whoever named the ‘Traditionalists’ and the
‘Transformationalists’ was both logically as well as theologically
correct.