The Divine Calm of George W. Bush: Iraq's a mess, half the country hates you - just keep praying!

Village Voice ^ | May 3rd, 2004 9:30 AM | Rick Perlstein

[dead]

For George W. Bush, August 6, 2001, had to have been a pretty harrowing day, reading as he did in his Daily Brief that operatives of Osama bin Laden were "in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," and surveilling federal buildings in New York, and mulling over plans to attack Washington, D.C. But a reporter who saw him cavorting on his Crawford ranch not long after said, "The president was probably at the most relaxed I've ever seen him."

April 9, 2004, couldn't have been too nice for the president either. That was when he was deciding whether to publicize the contents of that Daily Brief, after Condoleezza Rice's grilling at the hands of the commission investigating 9-11. He knew the document would unravel his cover story of several years' standing as to why he couldn’t have known Bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S.; its title was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." But Bush blithely spent the day pulling bass out of the lake on his ranch with a TV host, who observed, "The president was very relaxed."

It is one of the abiding mysteries of the Bush presidency: that when feces start hitting the fan, the man at the center seems not to have a care in the world.

Lyn Nofziger knows something about presidents under pressure: He worked with Nixon during Watergate and with Reagan during Iran-Contra. "There was a little panic on September 11," Nofziger, now a Republican lobbyist, observes of George W. Bush. "But I don’t really see any real signs of panic now."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does it have something to do with growing up wealthy and handsome, the son of a powerful politician, breezing through Yale under the protection of his Skull and Bones confreres? But George Bush the father possessed those same attributes, and in the middle of his re-election campaign in 1992, his approval ratings likewise heading south, he looked about ready to walk into a wall. "Close associates and even some foreign leaders have talked privately about episodes in which Bush looked bad and seemed distracted, nervous, or not entirely focused on the subject at hand," the Los Angeles Times put it delicately at the time.

The pressures for Bush the elder were hardly as great as they are now for Bush the younger, with the occupation of Iraq falling into chaos. Yet the elder seemed wracked by doubts. The younger seems to harbor none. What accounts for the difference?

Consider this story.

Shortly after his 1998 re-election as governor of Texas, Republican heavyweights begin to discuss George Bush Jr. as a presidential prospect. W. is dubious. Then one day he's sitting in church, Highland Methodist in Dallas, with his mother. The pastor, Mark Craig, preaches on Moses' ambivalence about leading the Israelites out of bondage. ("Sorry, God, I'm busy," the minister has Moses responding. "I've got a family. I've got sheep to tend. I've got a life.")

Pastor Craig moves on from the allegorical portion of his sermon. The American people are "starved for leadership," he says, "starved for leaders who have ethical and moral courage." He reminds his congregation, "It's not always easy or convenient for leaders to step forward. Remember, even Moses had doubts."

Barbara Bush, the high-church Episcopalian whose husband rejected advice to insert scriptural references into his speeches because they made him uncomfortable, tells her son, "He was talking to you."

George W. Bush, the born-again Christian, apparently hears his mother's "he" as the providential He. According to Stephen Mansfield's sympathetic account in The Faith of George W. Bush, he then called his friend, the Charismatic preacher James Robison, host of the TV show Life Today, and told him, "I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's hard to be perturbed when you believe what our president believes. According to Professor Bruce Lincoln, who teaches a seminar on the theology of George W. Bush at the University of Chicago Divinity School, the president "does feel that people are called upon by the Divine to undertake certain positions in the world, and undertake certain actions, and to be responsible for certain things. And he makes, I think, quite clear—explicitly in some contexts, and implicitly in a great many others—that he occupies the office by a Divine calling. That God put him there with a sense of purpose."

It has been a topic of some confusion, the meaning of George Bush's religious beliefs. Some commentators trumpet the president's ties to Howard Ahmanson, a fantastically wealthy Californian who is an acolyte of the "Christian Reconstructionist" movement—which aims to place the United States under Biblical law (though Ahmanson proclaims himself personally against, say, the stoning of homosexuals). Others point up his connections to apocalyptic millennialists like Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Left Behind novels. The problem is that, theologically, Bush can't serve both these masters at once. The likes of LaHaye actively search for signs of the Second Coming of Christ and spend their days feverishly speculating about and preparing for the seven years’ battle for the world that will follow. Reconstructionists, Alan Jacobs, a professor at the evangelical college Wheaton, has explained, "are pretty confident Jesus isn’t going to show up any time soon," which is precisely their rationale for bringing the Book of Leviticus to life in the here-and-now.

There's no evidence that George Bush believes what Christian Reconstructionists believe. And in contrast to Ronald Reagan, who was always letting loose intemperate slips about America's role in Revelation's End Times showdown, the University of Chicago's Bruce Lincoln says, "in [Bush's] public messages I find very little that's apocalyptic."

Cautioning that it's almost impossible to know anyone's true beliefs, Lincoln still thinks he's got a pretty good sense of Bush's. The results help illuminate this question of how Bush maintains his peace of mind under such unimaginable stress.

When the drunken and dissolute prodigal finally found Jesus in the mid 1980s, the book of the Bible his study group was poring over was the Acts of the Apostles. "It's focused on missionizing, evangelizing, spreading the faith," Lincoln explains. "It's not end-of-the-world stuff. It's expansionist—it's religious imperialism, if you will. And I think that remains his primary orientation."

What's more, Lincoln adds, his primary orientation also holds that "the U.S. is the new Israel as God's most favored nation, and those responsible for the state of America in the world also enjoy special favor. . . . Foremost among the signs of grace—if I read him correctly—are the cardinal American virtues of courage, on the one hand, and compassion, on the other." For Bush to waver would be to tempt God's disfavor; what's more, we can speculate that the very act of holding to his resolve—what his critics identify as stubbornness and arrogance—becomes, tautologically, a way of both producing, and reassuring himself of, his special place in God's plan. The existential benefits are obvious. "Wherever the U.S. happens to advance something that he can call 'freedom,' he thinks he’s serving God's will, and he proclaims he's serving God's will."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Al Qaeda attacks play into this vision perfectly. They have allowed George Bush to move his administration into a Manichaean realm that pre–9-11 issues like stem cell research and estate tax repeal never could have. It's why so much of his re-election rhetoric, both from the campaign and from his followers, proceeds as if his inauguration took place on September 12, 2001. Or, as the jacket copy for The Faith of George W. Bush puts it, "From the tragedy of September 11 to the present-day conflict in Iraq, President Bush has learned to use his faith to help him live his life—both in office and in private." It is a field of force that Bush helps shape every time he ends his speeches with the homiletic "May God continue to bless America."

Explains Lincoln in his book Holy Terrors: Thinking About Religion After September 11, it's a phrase that, by transcending the clichéd version of the formulation, "suggests Bush and his speechwriters gave serious thought to the phrase and decided to emphatically reaffirm the notion that the United States has enjoyed divine favor throughout its history—moreover, that it deserves said favor insofar as it remains firm in its faith."

Lincoln points out an especially cunning aspect of the post–9-11 incarnation of Christian militancy: that Bush's invocation of Islam as a "religion of peace," a great religion hijacked by the terrorists, need not contradict the specifically Christian aspects of this vision. Some Christians, Lincoln observes, "would maintain that Christianity is not a religion. The others"—Islam, Shinto, whatever—"are religions." Christianity, simply, is reality: the truth. Bush can praise Islam to the skies, but it needn't take away from the Christian right's sense that Bush knows it's really Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This belief among his followers is another element behind Bush's apparent imperturbability. His signals to them have produced a mass of people who unequivocally embrace the notion that their president was given to them by Providence.

Jennifer Shroder is the pseudonym of a California housewife and religious-right activist whose agitations against textbooks she claims teach children "how to pray to Allah" and "to participate in any and all religions except that of His Son, Jesus Christ" have won her coverage from the Associated Press, the New York Post, and USA Today. In an e-mail to the Voice, she explains President Bush's divine selection by way of 1 Corinthians, and also the Book of Isaiah—the latter for its injunction "Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people," the former for its description of the leader Jehoiada, "who is very similar to President Bush, using 'sword and shield' along with the leaders with him."

She illustrates an article on her website, blessedcause.org, called "President Bush, National Hero" with a painting of the president alongside the ghostly figures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, who rest their hands upon his shoulders, heads bowed. A halo of light emanates from Bush's head; in intersection with the horizontal of the presidential lectern, it appears to form a crucifix.

Lest you think Jen is alone, the painting comes from a another website, presidentialprayerteam.com, through which 2.8 million members receive daily instructions on how to coordinate prayer for the president. I don't know about you, but if I had 2.8 million people advertising the fact that they were praying for my well-being every day—and, to boot, if I actually believed that prayer worked—I'd feel pretty damned relaxed, too.

No, President Bush feels little reason to doubt. "It's different from, say, Dick Nixon," says Lyn Nofziger, "who was putting on a brave front but knew underneath he was wrong—that he was doing things that if he ever got caught he would be in trouble. I don't think this guy thinks that. He thinks he's doing the proper thing."

[SnarlinCubBear]

ping for later

[Howlin]

You're assuming a lot, don't you think?

Just because Bush has faith, doesn't mean he's hell bent on a certain course.

He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who believes he's infallable. You're confusing him with somebody else.

[MoJo2001]

Rick Perlstein

Who: Rick Perlstein shows up with a decades-old plastic Barry Goldwater doll. "Isn't it great?" he giggles, pointing out its historically accurate features: crooked black-frame glasses, cowboy hat, aquiline nose. A self-described "puppy-doggish neurotic person," the 30-year-old left-leaning Milwaukee native has just completed a book about the rise and fall of Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign, and he's giddy, obsessive, and deadly serious about American history. "I really want to squeeze the guts out of an event," he says. "You know, make people smell the hot dogs and stuff." Young, gifted, and Ph.D.-less, Perlstein discovered his passion for 1960s political culture in 1996 while writing an article for Lingua Franca about the decade's leftist movements. But a strange thing happened: Researching the history of the left gave Perlstein the nagging sense that to understand the political legacy of the 1960s you have to know something about the far right.

What: Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus looks at the '60s through the lens of Goldwater's campaign—from its origins in the minds of conservative activists to its defeat at the polls. Poetically written and rigorously researched, the book argues that this was one time when "history was written by the losers." By 1964, Goldwater conservatives had virtually set the stage for the next 30 years of radically conservative political victories—the Reagans, the Bushes, the Gingriches. They learned how to organize the grassroots; captured an array of congressional seats; and most important, began to transform the language of American political culture. Their rhetoric and ideas that in 1964 were generally considered extremist—such as dismantling the welfare state—would eventually dominate American political culture. In fact, he notes, the real legacy of the 1960s was the mainstreaming of Goldwater conservatism and the triumph of easy-to-leverage electoral distrust. An amateur jazz pianist with an ear for rhythm, Perlstein manages to make this depressing story an engaging, readable, and politically compelling narrative. And he reminds us that if leftists are going to bring about political change, they have to understand the history of the radical right.—Rachel Mattson

Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus will be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux in January 2001

Lifted from the VillageVoice.com

 

[Sir Gawain]

If he's not re-elected (I don't even like to think about that), but if he's not, he'll go back to Crawford and be content.

Maybe pre-9/11, but I remember him saying something a while back about the stakes of this election. I don't think he will be "content" if he loses. I think he'll be afraid for the country along with the rest of us.

[dead]

Bush sees no reason to question his policies, because he believes them to be in concert with his faith.

You never attempted to make that point in your article. It is an absolute basic tenet of Christian belief that every human is by definition fallable. Every Christian, including Bush, knows they make mistakes each and every day. They also believe that to “get right with God” they need to try to take the actions that will correct those mistakes.

My question: let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that George W. Bush did something you didn't like, that you thought was disastrous.

No shortage of those actions on my account. His steel tariffs, the education bill, campaign finance reform, farm bill, etc.

Even in the face of bad results, he kept at it. You get frustrated, and hope he will hew back to a course you do agree with. But then you realize he will never change, because Bush thinks his course is divinely ordained.

He saw his error on the steel tariffs, for example, and reversed course. He does not, in any way, believe his decisions are divinely ordained. You seem to be changing your argument, because your article didn’t stir up enough outrage.

Regarding the war on terror, he has changed tactics frequently. Sometimes frustratingly so. But he hasn't faltered from his overall contention that the threat posed to the free world by Islamic fundamentalism must be confronted and defeated. Whether his determination to complete that mission is driven by his faith in God or his common sense matters little to me. It is a fact.

And I'm happy that his reelection prospects don't figure into his equations on that battle.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

3) The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake;

then isn't this an abuse of faith, not a way of honoring God?

Being imperturable because of strong faith in God does not equate to never admitting to a mistake. Part of prayer is listening and then striving to act in conformity with His plan.

I infer from people who are uncomfortable with having a devout Christian in the White House that they believe only atheists or those who are not really serious about their faith are compentent to hold public offiec.

[dirtboy]

The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake;

I think you are crafting a strawman here - that the reason that the Bush Admin is loathe to admit mistakes is because of Bush's faith. I would venture instead that the main reason that the Bush Admin clams up over mistakes is that the media, and especially far-left critics, jump over the Bush Admin swinging like banshees no matter what Bush does - so why bother giving them more ammo?

You only need to look at the chronic distortions by the media of the positions of the Bush Administration - from Kyoto (it was DOA after that 1995 95-0 vote in the Senate, Bush just declared it DOA) to the infamous lie that Bush claimed that the threat from Saddam was imminent in his 2002 SOTU to justify attacking Saddam when Bush instead said we shouldn't wait for the threat to become imminent.

If the left wants Bush to admit to mistakes, they should start by being more honest in their criticisms of his administration. The well is being poisoned by both parties here.

[Peach]

I don't for a minute believe that President Bush makes decisions based on religion, not decisions like national security, anyway. Perhaps on partial birth abortion and stem cell replacement therapy.

And your statement that President Bush does not question his policies because he considers them in concert with his faith is rather ridiculous in my view. We have seen dozens of articles written about adminsitration officials who have been quoted as saying that the president LIKES to have different opinions presented to him and he studies all sides of the issue and makes a decision.

And where have you seen evidence of this:

"The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake."

Many freepers would disagree with that statement entirely. He has changed course on some things so often that negative freepers have called him a flip flopper ala Kerry. Cases in point: didn't want a 9/11 Commission, was going to only give them on hour, wasn't going to let Condi testify, the list is a fairly long one, in fact. I don't consider them flip flops but the considered judgement of a man who changes his mind when either politics or the course of events intervenes.

For that matter - Bush ran as an isolationist. 9/11 intervened and the doctrine changed to one of pre-emption.

Your arguments are don't hold water for me.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

I mean 'office.'

[Texagirl4W]

I guess the opposition would be more comfortable if President Bush was having an affair with an intern. I'm beginning to believe they (opposition) just don't understand that someone can have morals, believe in God, and be president of the greatest nation God created.

[Miss Marple]

It isn't that President Bush thinks he is infallible. A careful reading of both his public actions and speeches should lead one to think otherwise. (Paul O'Neill is no longer Secretary of the Treasury, for example.)

Apparently what the left wants is for the president to state his mistakes in public, so that they have a nice juicy headline. Unfortunately for that group, he isn't stupid enough to take them up on their offer.

I do believe that attempting to make his lack of public mea culpa a requirement for a sound Christian faith is a bit silly and you should know better.

[Brad’s Gramma]

... Bush sees no reason to question his policies, because he believes them to be in concert with his faith.

Not meaning to argue, but can you show me facts, instances, NOT someone's reading something into something that GW sees no reason to question his policies due to his faith in God?

let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that George W. Bush did something you didn't like, that you thought was disastrous

He has. Disastrous? Maybe, maybe not. But since he's NOT God, I will not agree with him 100% of the time anyway!

when you make a mistake, the best course often is to CHANGE course;

What mistake? And in who's opinion has this mistake been made? GW's? Or the left who will argue that he can't even put his shoes on correctly?

that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake;

Impossible. EVERYONE makes mistakes. We are all sinners. We all fall short of the glory of God. If GW is a true believer in our risen Lord and Saviour, he HAS to confess his sins, and between he & God, he has to rectify that. Making your final comment....then isn't this an abuse of faith, not a way of honoring God?

wrong.

[Fawnn]

Bump!

(I plan to read it again later, with my "it's the Village Voice" filter off.) ;)

[Brad’s Gramma]

AND!.......the title of your article alone is typical of the left.

The left glorified Clinton, even though he and Monica were carrying on in the Oval Office. Even though he sold us out to China and who knows who else....Even though he lied, cheated, I'll stop there...

But to pray is a crime??

It just doesn't work, sorry.

[Perlstein]

>I find it incredibly hypocritical that the left almost universally thinks >that any reference to one's faith or God's will in a conservative >>Christian is a sign of lunacy or dementia, yet the rabid, obsessive >devotion to one's faith, even to extremes of death, in Muslims is seen to be a sign of character and sincerity.

Sender, find me one example of a person on the left who finds a rabid devotion to Islam even to extremes of death a sign of character or sincerity. If you find three, I'll buy you a steak dinner. Though that would be far from enough to suggest "the left" believes this "almost universally."

By the way, prior to 9/11, you could find much praise of Muslim devotion among conservatives. Grover Norquist almost got into quite a bit of trouble for it, if I recall.

Rick Perlstein

[Rooivalk]

It just drives the fish wrap writers of the Village Voice (and NYT) absolutely crazy that GWB is a man of principle AND Faith.

---

.....And he has a vision for this country based uponh his principle and faith. That is his guiding star in these troubled times

[Perlstein]

To Peach, who says, "I don't or a minute believe that President Bush makes decisions based on religion, not decisions like national security, anyway," are you not familiar with Bush quote, spoken at Aqaba to the Palestinian leadership: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Rick Perlstein

[Howlin]

I think we are being trolled for a new article.

[VRWC_minion]

Good reflection. Churches pray for their leaders regularly, including Clinton.

[Brad’s Gramma]

I've been troll hunting. I don't like what I see.