The Irony Of Attacking Bush's Moral Clarity
By Robert E. Meyer (10/27/04)
President Bush is despised for his black and white positions on various issues. Particularly any time Bush displays such contrasts as "good vs. evil" or "right and wrong" when framing an issue. During the debates, Kerry even took the time to point this predisposition out. One can only wonder about the tacit implications of such critisism. Is it possible that the terrorists are right in attacking us? Is it likely that the foreign nations who allegedly cheated on sanctions and abused the "food for oil" program, are really taking the moral high ground in their refusal to participate in the coalition engaged in liberating Iraq. If it is deemed that Bush is wrong in his approach, then these conclusions are virtually necessary.
Unfortunately, many liberal Christian organizations have been guilty of running down the same road, so rather than supporting him, they take a "not in my name" approach. They object to both the military and civilian deaths, and have implied, if not stated outright, that the campaign in Iraq is an unjust war. The problem is that this simplistic approach never considers the opportunity cost of failing to act.
So when voting at the polls next month, you are exhorted to consider which political party more epitomizes social justice-which party or candidate has economic and social agendas that most closely typify Christ's admonishing in "The Sermon On The Mount". Somehow we are supposed to conclude that the thousands of deaths in Iraq, are pure, senseless and unnecessary carnage, while the millions of the unborn liquidated since Roe vs. Wade are inconsequential in any comparative manner. Thus actions, such as voting for John Kerry for president, are not seen merely as morally acceptable; they are all but endorsed.
The president is often excoriated for his comment "those who are not with us are against us", as if Bush was claiming that God is on the side of America by default. It is odd that the "God is on our side" card is played with such regularity in an effort to trump conservative presidents, when they often go out of their way to say exactly the opposite. Ronald Reagan once reminded Americans that we must not assume God is on our side, but we must strive to be on his side. A whiff of humility, but a call to action. On the other hand, it often seems that the liberals are very certain we are either generally or specifically wrong despite the stubbornness and malfeaseace of our "traditional allies".
Moving on to cultural issues, we see this charge of moral certitude immediately misapplied and misplaced. In the final Bush-Kerry debate, both candidates were asked if homosexuality was a choice. Bush honestly claimed "I don't know", while Kerry dogmatically pontificated that it absolutely was not a choice. He then appealed to emotion and anecdotal evidence in attempting to buttress his perspective. It fact, behavior-any behavior, is a dynamic interchange between heredity, environment, and personal cognitive factors. Bush seemed to understand that the answer to the question had no bearing on whether or not homosexuals should legally be allowed to marry. But in any case, who exhibited the unwarranted certitude here?
Another area of interest, concerns the many accusations made about the integrity of the president. We constantly hear that "Bush lied", yet I know of not one shred of proof this is the case. Still these people continue on with their crusade of moral certainty, undaunted, and unconcerned about the need for reasons to believe such a poignant accusation. They shamelessly substitute assumed motives for evidence. Bush has indicated that he would have still gone after Hussein, knowing what he knows now, indicating there was more to his motives then merely destroying weapons of mass destruction. Again, what makes them so certain that Bush lied?
We could go on to cite more examples, but these should be adequate to make the point. In general, I believe it is Bush's faith that is under attack. Not just because he says he has religious faith, as did John Kerry; but because he is willing to act on and be guided by such emanating principles. Yet when Bush is questioned, he says that his prayer life gives him inner peace-calm in the eye of life's hurricanes. This hardly represents the images conveyed by detractors, about Bush being spoken to either audibly or at least intuitively by God.
Sometimes I believe this whole matter to be an exercise in utter nonsense. Ask yourself what good having a conviction about an issue is, if the conviction must merely be transferred inwardly and not acted upon? Or what good it is to question and disparage yourself each time somebody has doubts? What are you saying about your own decision making process, if you don't think your own soul-searched conclusions are worth the time and effort to convince others? Why bother then to even settle on believing anything at all? None of us are always correct in our analysis, but that doesn't imply there are no ultimate rights or wrongs. Nuances are sometimes an insufficiency in understanding or a coward's fence-straddling refuge.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Robert E. Meyer
