Bush, The Religious Scholar

According to anarticle published in Capitol HillBlue that is receiving a lot of attention, President Bush's "erratic behavior" is worrying WhiteHouse aides. According to its author Doug Thompson, "In meetings with top aides and administrationofficials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media,Democrats and others that he classifies as 'enemies of the state.'"

The implication is that there is contradiction here, although I find none,necessarily, between religiosity and obscene language. (Martin Luther, for example, was prone to scatologicalexpression.) But contradiction there surely is aplenty in the commander in chief's recent comments concerninghis global war. Those statements do suggest instability and delusions of messianic grandeur, and should worrynot just his aides but the entire world.

Last week, during aninterview with French journalists, Bush was asked whether he really considered all the Iraqis fighting theUS occupation to be "terrorists." In an apparent moment of clarity he said no. "Thesuicide bombers are," he declared, "but the other fighters aren't. They just don't want to beoccupied. Not even me, nobody, would want to be. That's why we're giving them their sovereignty. We areguaranteeing them complete sovereignty from June 30." (But wait; hadn't he proclaimed Maqtada al-Sadra terrorist, depicted the resistance in general as the work of foreign and domestic terrorists, and dubbed thewar in Iraq the "central battlefield in the War on Terrorism"? Whence this new empathy those who"just don't want to be occupied"?)

Maybe it was just a slip of the tongue, occasioned by the atmosphere ofmoral disapproval that must hang about the president in Old Europe. But others in the administration also seemto be backing away from the simplistic division of the world into friends and "terrorists." ThusDonald Rumsfeld, after boastingto the graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy that the U.S. has "overthrown two viciousregimes and liberated 50 million people, disrupted terrorist cells across the globe and thwarted manyterrorist attacks," added that. "despite our successes, we are closer to the beginning of thisstruggle with global insurgency than to its end." (Note: global insurgency, rather than"terrorism." Rebellion all over the planet but rebellion against whom? Against theU.S., of course---or against "U.S. interests," however the Bushies might wish to define them.)

For insight on the evolving definition of the global problem, check outBush's comments to religious editors and writers published in Christianity Today (May 28). He mentions"a clash of ideologies," and while his presentation is characteristically garbled, it's clear he'spitting "our belief in freedom" against "an enemy" who must be prevented "fromattacking us again. Which I believe they want to do" (note the switch between singular and plural). Whois this "they"? Why, people whom Bush knows "want to do it because I know they want tosow discord, distrust, and fear at home so that we begin to withdraw from parts of the world where they wouldlike to have enormous influence to spread their Taliban-like vision-the corruption of religion-to suit theirpurposes. " (So the global insurgents are "Taliban-like" extremist Muslims hell-bent onattacking "freedoms" as represented in Ashcroft's America and elsewhere in the pro-American world.)

"I think that they want to drive us out of parts of the world,"continues Bush, "so they're better able to have a base from which to operate. I think it's very much morelike an 'ism' than a group with territorial ambition."
"More like a what?" asks a Christian interviewer, politely. "An 'ism' like Communism,"replies the president, warming to his topic in such receptive company, "that knows no boundaries, asopposed to a power that takes land for gold or land for oil or whatever it might be. I don't see theirambition as territorial. I see their ambition as seeking safe haven. And I know they want to create powervacuums into which they are able to flow."

(Comment: many have argued the obvious---that "terrorism" is notan ideology but a tactic, difficult to define, but however defined, used by all kinds of people,including U.S. forces. But here Bush comes close to honing in on "Taliban-like" Islamism,comparing it to Communism in its transnational appeal.)

"To what final end?" asks an interviewer. "The expansion ofIslam?"

"No," replies Bush, "I think the expansion of their view ofIslam, which would be I guess a fanatical version that-you know, you're trying to lure me down a road [where]I'm incapable of winning the debate. But I'm smart enough to understand when I'm about to get nuancedout."

(This is so telling. Are the Christianity Today editors really tryingto trip the president up? Surely not. In fact the interview is conducted with all sickening deference. Whatlurking road does the president fear? What "debate" occurs here, other than one perhaps in his ownmind, occasioning his hesitation? "I'm about to get nuanced out." By whom? Where? Who'strying to nuance this president who told Mahmoud Abbas last year that "God told me to smite [SaddamHussein]. And I smote him"? I suspect the president fears that, should he "go down a road" oftrying to speak intelligently about Islam, of which he knows and cares so little, he may get into sometrouble. Best to stick with what God has told him specifically.)

"No, I think they [the enemies] have a perverted view of what religionshould be, and it is not based upon peace and love and compassion--quite the opposite. These are people thatwill kill at the drop of a hat, and they will kill anybody, which means there are no rules. And that is not,at least, my view of religion. And I don't think it's the view of any other scholar's view of religioneither."

(Other scholar's view? Bush is now a religious scholar? And is heclueless about the drop-of-the-hat killings which daily occur, courtesy trigger-happy U.S. troops in Iraq?)

Much of the Christianity Today interview deals with Bush's"faith-based initiative" and his opposition to abortion and gay marriage. "At home," heexplains in his best religious-scholar mode, "the job of a president is to help cultures change."But plainly he perceives this as his job abroad as well. Muslim culture in particular must be helped tochange. What if such "help" is neither solicited nor desired, nor the insistent offer accepted assincere? Enter that realm of debate and the president gets nuanced out. There's nothing to do but fall back onsimplest, least confusing concepts.

"My job is to speak clearly and when you say something, mean it. Andwhen you're trying to lead the world in a war that I view as really between the forces of good and the forcesof evil, you got to speak clearly. There can't be any doubt. And when you say you're going to do something,you've got to do it. Otherwise, particularly given the position of the United States in the world today, therewill be confusion."

In fact, the world obtains increasing clarity concerning the nature of theBush administration, recognizing that the administration is both hopelessly confused (in among other respects,its religious fundamentalism) and a force of evil as great as any in recent memory. The "globalinsurgency" Rumsfeld posits as the enemy is really the global population, complex in ideology andreligious affiliation, ridden by numerous divisions but never more inclined to rebel against Washington'sglobal agenda.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor ofComparative Religion. He is the author of Servants,Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; MaleColors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and InterracialIntimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900.