This is Going to Get Me in Trouble

OK, I'll bite. Byron Harvey asked, “Why is This Man (George W. Bush) Hated So Much?� I decided to write up a bit of a response, and ended up with quite an unorganized, stream-of-consciousness rant. I decided to post it for your perusal. Read the whole post here, then start sending me the hate mail:

I agree that a comparison could be made between the Clinton-haters and the Bush-haters. I even had some Clinton-hating tendencies back in the day (my desire for integrity really took issue with "I did not have sex with that woman"). However, my dislike for some of Bill's infidelities does not even begin to compare with my distrust of our current leader. The consequences of lying about sex seem petty compared to the consequences of lying (or perhaps being misled) about the justification for taking human life.

Perhaps the primary reason I dislike President Bush so much is that I really wanted to like him. Compassionate conservativism had a nice ring to it, but turned out to be a gallon of compassion in a barrel of conservativism (deliberate use of oil imagery). This conservativism demonstrated in his belief in privatization and capitalism as God’s answer to the world’s problems is troubling. Prisons run by companies that have a vested financial interest in seeing "repeat business" just doesn't seem like a great idea. His outspoken stance against affirmative action in the Grutter v. Bollinger case did not seem very compassionate (not to mention that his proposed 10% plan was completely uninformed in the U-M case). No Child Left Behind rewarded the already highly performing schools and penalized the schools with challenges. Where is the compassion in catering to “the haves and the have mores� or what he calls his base?

Obviously President Bush’s close relationship with the oil industry and the Saudi royal family creates a conflict of interest for the war in Iraq. Note that I am NOT saying that the only reason he led us to war is for oil. However, we have to admit that his previous career in oil and Cheney’s previous position with Halliburton create conflicts of interest on the surface.

Now, as far the Bush administration’s own justification for the war is concerned, it seems shaky at best. His 2003 State of the Union address stated, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.� VP Cheney said that “overwhelming evidence� exists that Saddam Hussein “has an established relationship with al-Qaeda, providing training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs.� Well, the overwhelming evidence was wrong. “So what's the difference? If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger,� Bush told Diane Sawyer. I don’t disagree that Saddam is an evil man, but he seemed to pose very little threat of “danger� to the United States. As far as the liberation of the Iraqi people as a justification for was is concerned, I hope that Iraq will be the better for our involvement, but considering our involvement in the 1980s outfitting Hussein in the war against Iran, I doubt our ability to choose wisely who we will put empower in the new Iraq.

The main reason for my dislike of President Bush is his use of God to justify his actions. I believe that President Bush is very sincere in his desire to do God’s will, and it seems that he sees himself as an integral part of God’s plan for making the world a better place. I think President Bush wants to be remembered for accomplishing big things for God: bringing peace to the Middle East, appointing conservative Supreme Court justices (to overturn Roe v. Wade), pulling the economy out of a recession by sending tax refunds, saving the country from inevitable destruction by banning gay marriage, the list goes on. My concern is that he talks about God so much in all of this.

As a Christian who disagrees with President Bush on many issues, the main disagreement I have is likely on an evangelical model. President Bush seems to think that enforcing a Judeo-Christian code of ethics and exposing people to Biblical truths (such as putting the Ten Commandments in court rooms, keeping “under God� in the Pledge of Allegiance, praying at inaugurations, etc.) will help people to come into relationship with God. However, in my experience, this has just the opposite effect. President Bush makes it difficult for me to have meaningful conversations about God with friends, because the view of God he presents is so radically polarizing.

Finally, my understanding of the Bible and God’s value system places huge importance on the value of human life. President Bush acknowledges this in his fight against abortion, but seems to miss it when it comes to going to war. Taking human life is sin (see aforementioned Ten Commandments). Are there times when it is justified? Personally, I’m hesitant to concede this point, but for the sake of argument, sure. The war in Iraq is not one of these situations. We did not take human life as an absolute last resort. We did not take human life in self-defense. We did not even take human life out of retaliation. Rather, we started an unprovoked war that resulted in thousands of human deaths. This seems terribly inconsistent with my understanding of Christianity, the Christianity that President Bush talks so much about. That is why I am not a Bush supporter.