Believers Are Scary: Why The Bush Administration Scares Me
I have been pondering for a long time trying to figure out exactly what my issues are with the current administration. There are many emotional issues that strike me immediately, but I find them to be of little value when trying to evaluate the effectiveness and direction of this administration. For sure, they are arrogant and self-righteous and secretive and pompous and most of all they act like schoolyard bullies. But, truth be told, there is a little of that in every leader or politician with significant power. I was born and raised in the Washington, D.C. area, so I’m no stranger to the personalities of those who work in the White House and on Capitol Hill. I have also worked in the government sector for over 10 years as a consultant and have served a tour in Afghanistan as an Army soldier, so I know that there is little validity or meaningful purpose behind large conspiracy theories or the like. For the most part their behavior makes them hypocrites as they regularly stand on their “moral high ground” and berate their opponents and ideological opposites while bemoaning the loss of civil discourse and debate. However, being a bit of a hypocrite has never really been a showstopper for any politician either.
I think this behavior and all its consequences are merely the symptoms of related, deep seeded issues that makes up the disease that is at the root of my concern about this administration. What bother me the most are their policies and their reasoning behind their policies. It’s the logic, or lack there of, that I think is truly disturbing. However, the question is still in the air, why? Why do men and women who are by no means stupid develop and promote policies that, beyond their shiny surfaces, are so illogical and counterproductive, especially in the long term?
It’s with the rest of this rant that I attempt to reconcile this question.
On the way into work today I was close to solidifying my theory in my head when it was quickly made whole while I was listening to an interview with Hans Blix on NPR. When asked why the Bush Administration went into Iraq when all signs were pointing against the existence of WMD and some of their own intelligence was shown to be false, he answered (I’m paraphrasing here), “Because they are believers. They believed that WMD existed and the believed that Saddam was evil.” Pop! Bing! Bam! Boom! The light bulb went off in my head and I had the epiphany that has spurred me to write this rant. What struck me so clearly in his statement was the use, and I think intentional use, of the word “BELIEVE”. That’s exactly it! They, the Bush Administration, neo-conservatives and all their minions et al, are BELIEVERS! BELIEVERS don’t need empirical evidence; they don’t need facts; they don’t need logic; they only need their vision and their BELIEFS. In a nutshell this explained what makes them both shortsighted and illogical, and in the long run, detrimental to the long-term future of this country.
First, do not think this rant is meant to denigrate one’s religious belief system. I am not talking about being Christian, Muslim or Jewish or of any other religious “faith”. What I’m writing about is applying the same system of faith and belief to the human political system. When one is discussing “God” or “Religion” or “Faith” they are essentially talking about something that cannot be proved or supported via empirical evidence – regardless of how hard some seem to try. It requires FAITH to BELIEVE in God or a higher power because by definition, God and these higher powers are beyond the realm of empirical evidence. Your FAITH and BELIEF are part of what proves your worthiness to God or the higher power. However, the body politic of man is not of the Godly realm and is wholly defined by empirical evidence and the perceptions of those within its system. Therefore, when one must explain their actions within the scope of politics, they must be able to answer the populace with empirical evidence or at least logic in order to adequately explain their actions. If one cannot do this, then they will eventually be exposed and will be removed from office – at least that is the hope.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at the current administration.
The Bush Administration has scored very high with respect to its reactions to 9/11. This comes from the inherent decisiveness that is part and parcel with BELIEVERS. War, combat and the defense of a nation require decisive action when this action is a response to a direct assault on our people and land. “He who hesitates is lost.” We can easily concede that the actions in Afghanistan were both warranted and conducted in excellent fashion – even if it would be harder to argue that any other President would have acted differently. Even the peacekeeping is going fairly well. Afghanistan was the epicenter for radical Muslim extremists and was a logical and proper choice for direct action. The funny thing is the world agreed. Strange how that works, you make a logical decision and most of the world agrees. Interesting.
Let’s also concede that the campaign in Iraq was also executed with efficiency and audacity that speaks to the excellence of our armed forces. The problems of keeping the peace not withstanding, it’s not our military that’s the problem in Iraq, it is the reasoning behind our being there and the lack of forethought by this administration that is now causing problems and is causing the populace to refocus on the abilities of this administration.
Mr. Bush has enjoyed a hiatus with respect to his domestic policies as well his foreign policies not related to the war on terrorism. In essence, our attention has been diverted. However, the public has lost most of its fear of terrorism at home, the world is none too pleased with our foray into Iraq, and the war itself and the economy aren’t going so well anymore. Our unemployment rate is high, our entitlement programs are going bankrupt, the rich are abdicating their responsibilities towards taxes at the expense of the middle and lower classes, and our environment is being ignored in order to provide short-term economic gains.
On the war front specifically, more men and women are coming home in body bags now than during the invasion and we have no WMD to show for it, no evidence of a terrorist link of any significance in Iraq, and we are now faced with years of support and peacekeeping if we don’t want to see a bloody civil war for which we will be blamed and rightly so. We are hemorrhaging are domestic financial resources to pay for this war and reconstruction and the benefit of even the most remote possibilities of success are starting to seem incongruent with the costs. We may establish a democracy in Iraq, but what if they choose a fundamentalist government? What then? Do we declare the election null and void because we don’t like the outcome? How democratic. And, what if they choose a secular government? How much money and time will we have to spend providing security to ensure it survives? The sad thing is, we are stuck paying for and supporting this effort because if we pull out now, it will be a bloodbath of epic proportions. Sadder still is the fact that in our approach we alienated the only countries that could provide viable peacekeeping support.
So, how did we get here?
We got here because from the very beginning of this administration, there was a “BELIEF” that Saddam was evil and that he had WMD and therefore he had to go. After 9/11, the BELIEF became even more ensconced. Because this administration is filled with like-minded BELIEVERS (they wouldn’t be in the administration if they weren’t like-minded), they need little supporting empirical evidence to convince them of their righteousness. Conversely, once they were convinced of their righteousness, it would have taken a great deal of contrary empirical evidence to dissuade them and, additionally, if you set the standard of evidence high enough, you can rest assured, no one will be able to meet the threshold. The problem is that with a BELIEVER it is easy to overlook the inherent inaccuracies and “gray” areas of intelligence when said intelligence supports your beliefs, but it is a different story when the intelligence is in opposition. In science or in logical discussions, when one’s theories are challenged, peers evaluate the evidence or argument presented and the worthiness of the challenge is determined. If the challenge can be repeated or has enough evidence to support its suppositions, then it is accepted and implemented in lieu of the original theory. However, in a faith based system you must virtually hit one over their head with the facts before they acquiesce. The difference is that BELIEF is based on emotion, not logic or critical thought. Therefore, your evidence, or in this case, intelligence, must be so strong as to overcome what the person believes “with all their heart” is correct. Come on, how can the President be wrong if he is surrounded by all those smart people and he BELIEVES with ALL HIS HEART that he is RIGHT?
Again you ask, how did we get here?
We got here because investors and consumers lost confidence in corporations and because the BELIEVERS, mostly congress in this case, have worked to deregulate industry as a whole, not because there is evidence that looser regulations spur ethical businesses that creates jobs, but because they BELIEVE that it does those things. The evidence, however, is usually quite to the contrary. But, because the evidence is based on social science and statistics, things quite fuzzy to begin with, those on the pulpit of BELIEF label it “Junk Science”. It’s that need for the baseball bat to the head. “If it doesn’t have a .05 confidence level then I’m not buying it.” This is a sentiment shared by many even though they know that very little in social science, or even hard science, can achieve such confidence levels. So, instead of erring on the side of caution and admitting that there even is a “gray area” to begin with, they turn to their BELIEFS and say, well, if you can’t prove it, then I will trust my BELIEFS. And, as is par for the course, they have no problems sighting social science statistics, with the same issues of confidence, when those findings support their BELIEFS. If you’re lucky they may admit that it’s not clear from the evidence presented, but they will then always fall back on their BELIEFS. What’s even worse is when they find some obscure study or statistic that muddies the water just enough to allow them to fall back on their BELIEFS and dismiss or ignore other facts or logical arguments.
More you ask?
We got here because those in charge of protecting our environment and the consumer BELIEVE that the free market and businesses are capable of policing themselves. Furthermore, they BELIEVE that the cost of doing business and keeping the economy running means it’s ok to lose a few trees, cause a little disease, poison a little water, or cut a few accounting corners. After all, it’s for the greater economic good of all people, right? So, if you’re against deregulation you must be against the economic betterment of the people, right? (You can’t have it both ways in the BELIEF world.) And, come on, those scientists and economists don’t really KNOW without a doubt what the effects of our policies are anyway. Ok, so why not err on the side of safety and fairness? All of the current administration’s environmental and business policies and laws come from their BELIEFS even though time and time again science and legal proceedings have shown that their BELIEFS are usually on the opposite side of fact and logic.
These are just some examples of how the role of BELIEF determines the path of this administration and those in Congress also on a similar BELIEF bandwagon. There are many others out there, but I will leave it to the reader to find them and see for themselves. However, don’t think that this approach is limited to just those people and organizations which we call the “Right”. There are many BELIEF ideologues on the “Left” as well. They are the ones responsible for political correctness run wild and for ridiculous regulations that overprotect and stifle economic expansion. Regardless of one’s political stripe, it’s their approach that makes them dangerous. The “Right” seems to have more of the BELIEVER type because, for the most part, they encompass more of the religious fundamentalists within their sphere of influence and understanding. (Something I find ironic as Jesus sat firmly on the left side of the equation) Consequently, the same strong belief system that accompanies their religious faith is translated into politics. This isn’t a judgment, but an observation. The same observation I think the founding fathers made when they ensured that the separation of church and state was such an important concept within the constitution.
You may now be asking, why is this an issue? Well, I think it’s an issue, in fact THE issue, because this sort of approach to decision taking and leadership can lead to several problems.
The first problem is that BELIEVERS, on both sides, tend to frame issues and problems in very simplistic terms, black and white if you will. They do this because any BELIEF system cannot easily deal with complexity. Complex systems are filled with contradictory information and require a great deal of insight, study and effort to understand and to manage. Many ideologically driven decisive people don’t have the time for such things and any fervent BELIEF system certainly has no time for skeptics and details. Therefore, everything and everyone must fit neatly into little boxes of black and white, right and wrong, or left and right. Those messy little details that cannot easily fit into one of the many diametrically opposed categories are swept away as irrelevant or are attacked as inaccurate or misleading. Rarely are such messy little details dealt with by facts because that would involve questioning their FAITH and once one does that, they open up a Pandora’s Box of questions and messy little details. And, once one begins to question one piece of a BELIEF-based system, then it brings into question the entire system, and the BELIEVERS can’t have that either.
This inability to question one’s own BELIEFS and the propensity to label and categorize everything into opposing boxes also instigates and promotes divisiveness and an US vs. THEM mentality. Consequently one is either with me or against me and if they are with me, then they cannot question the BELIEFS upon which we are based. So, instead of having enlightened debate about a subject, we end up with partisan posturing and the marketing of information that defends an ideological position but does not help solve the problem. The end result is polarization based on ideology instead of useful debate about the approach to a solution or the related facts.
Another problem with BELIEVERS is their unwillingness to question their own system of BELIEF. As was touched on above, if one begins to question their belief system, then everything they BELIEVE they know comes into question and worse still, the world is no longer a simplistic equation capable of being categorized into tidy boxes. “If I can’t categorize then I have to analyze and that requires effort, and God forbid I may have to change my mind should the data suggest that my viewpoint is wrong. And change? We cannot change, for that would require…effort.” And, should one challenge their strategy of simplification, then they have a label for them too: "elitist", "technocrat", and "intellectual snob". Notice they never say a person thusly labeled is wrong based on the facts, just that they are an "elitist" and OBVIOUSLY out of touch with this SIMPLE problem. See, BELIEVING is easy. It’s only challenging when one finally gets hit over the head with a messy little detail that can’t be neatly categorized or easily dismissed. It’s much easier to say “In Shalah”, “It’s God’s Will”, than to accept the fact that A) we don’t control everything and B) maybe there is something I am missing or I’m wrong about. And, once one begins to question their simplistic model, then all of their resultant BELIEFS and decisions and positions based on that belief are now brought into question. Furthermore, they now must actually work to develop an informed opinion on each issue or concern instead of easily drawing conclusions based on their BELIEFS or from the trough of like-minded ideologues.
And, if one does change their mind, then they have set themselves up for the worst of all labels in the BELIEVER world, “waffler”, “flip-flopper”, “opportunist”. The critical thinking mind does not fear change and does not fear changing one’s mind when faced with clear evidence that’s in contrast to earlier held positions. This is so because the mind that’s not stuck in a particular BELIEF system understands that nothing in the human world, much less the political, is set in stone and most things don’t fit neatly into black and white boxes. Therefore, the critical thinker attempts to make decisions on the best information available at any one time. Does this mean that the right decision will always be taken, no. But, what it does mean is that the critical thinker has justifiable reasons for the decision taken and clear reasons for instigating change based on the new data or information. Best of all, they can do it with a clear conscience. However, if one takes a position on BELIEF and only considers information in line with their agenda, then they have no room for a change of “heart” and therefore will be subject to throwing themselves upon their own sword before instigating rightful change.
So, which kind of person do YOU want taking decisions that affect your life?
There are many other issues that come with those who chose FAITH over critical thinking, but again, I leave that to the reader to explore. However, we need to also ask ourselves how we have been sold on those that lead from the pulpit of BELIEF as opposed to critical thought. We, and I mean collectively as we have elected many that fit into this category, have allowed ourselves to be led by such people because they have appealed to our emotions. Like all good BELIEVERS they know that facts alone will not incite the type of action for which they are looking. They must appeal to our emotions.
From the Right: We have been attacked and we are vulnerable! You deserve your money more than the Government! Regulations stifle economic growth! Illegal immigrants take your jobs! Saddam kills his own people and is making weapons of mass destruction that could kill YOU! Environmentalists are tree-hugging wackos who care more about whales then people! Public schools promote premarital sex and teach a theory that borders on religion and discounts God! Democrats are liberal wimps!
From the LEFT: All corporations are evil and want to rip you off! All corporations that make money from natural resources are evil and will destroy the world! The IMF is the route of all evil! All Pro-Lifers are Terrorists! Good security means loss of all our freedoms! Republicans are religious zealot warmongers!
Where the BELIEVERS excel in the marketing and promotion of their message they lack context and critical thought. If you were to ask any politician or leader what are the major problems in this country, you would most likely get similar answers from all of them, although in a slightly different order of priority. Where the large differences would become apparent between the critical thinker and the BELIEVER is in the framing of the problem and the approach to the solution.
First, we should acknowledge that most of the problems in today’s America are NOT that big a deal. Trust me when I tell you, after spending 9 months in Afghanistan, that other than defending ourselves from major attack, our problems are one of detail that most other countries wish they had time or need to discuss. Many other countries deal with whether or not they will even have schools, or roads on which to drive to school, as opposed to whether schools should teach the use of condoms. They worry about disease and food and basic infrastructure instead of obesity, violence on TV, and smoking. They worry whether their kid is going to step on a land mine, be forced into labor, or die of dysentery instead of whether they are playing too many video games and watching Janet Jackson expose a breast during the Super Bowl. What we worry about amounts to fine-tuning. Because of this, most of the clear-cut, simple issues that face many other countries have already been covered and dealt with in America. This means that the “problems” we are dealing with today are complex. It’s this complexity that causes problems and creates those messy “gray areas”. Its how one deals with said complexity that draws the distinction between BELIEVERS and critical thinkers.
BELIEVERS frame the problem by first trying to stuff it into a nice, neat box that can have a convenient label placed on it and can be effectively marketed on a bumper sticker to a populace more interested in watching brain-numbing “reality” entertainment and buying their next cell phone than engaging in the reality of politics and the finer points of tax policy and environmental regulation. BELIEVERS know that they don’t need facts to sell their point of view to the uninformed, they just need enough “information” to frame the problem so that it fits neatly into a box to which like-minded constituents can identify. Then it’s only a matter of saying, “Because this issue fits into Box A, the solution is in line with all issues that fall into Box A”. The solution that fits depends on whose “Box” you’re currently buying. If you’re a BELIEVER on the right, than solution “Right” fits. If you’re a BELIEVER on the left, than solution “Left” fits.
If you are unsure or your friends are questioning your particular BELIEF, no worries, each BELIEF system will feed you enough information and opinion to help you form an opinion inline with the BELIEF without the waste of personal time necessary to read a little and form your own opinion. What could be easier? The rub is that the BELIEVERS know that most people, especially those who are already BELIEVERS, but even some who are just uninterested or lazy, will be happy to have their opinions spoon fed to them if it means they don’t have to work for it themselves. And, gee, these people sure are smart, so they must know what they are talking about, right?
BELIEVERS rely on the laziness and apathy or those unwilling to apply critical thinking skills or, more importantly, personal time to a problem because that would constitute work. On the flip side, critical thinkers are hamstrung because the only way to get their message out effectively is to present the facts and facts are dry and boring and often inconclusive. To compound the problem this inconclusiveness plays right into the BELIEVER’S hands. “Confused by this inconclusive mumbo jumbo? No problem, we'll cut right through that confusion and spoon-feed you your opinion.” BELIEVERS have a whole host of organizations, think tanks and research centers that are happy to condense, massage, spin and market the appropriate information necessary to sell their respective agendas. The facts they do present are almost always out of context to the larger issue and are presented in a way to ensure that they promote a message consistent with the respective BELIEF systems they’re supporting. In short, they act as the information middlemen. The problem is they are NOT unbiased middlemen. And, if that’s where people are getting their “facts” from, then that's the BELIEF system they are consciously or unconsciously buying into. Worse yet, one can easily shop around until they find the information that fits their BELIEF system, as long as factual content isn't a prerequisite.
In contrast to this, critical thinkers look at all the evidence, and not just that which is produced by think tanks and the like that inevitably have their own agendas. Critical thinkers seek out independent sources whose independence can be verified and supported by the rigor of their research and not the strength or loudness or emotional appeal of their presentation.
BELIEVERS simplify while critical thinkers muddy the water with details and messy little facts, but as the saying goes, “The devil is in the details.” By simplifying issues, BELIEVERS create a framework that affords them the ability to present solutions that address only a simplified, dumb-downed issue. The real problem is that the issue is actually very complex and the “simple” solution only addresses the cosmetic surface and not the underlying root cause of the problem. Too many criminals? Build more jails – but at what cost to manage and what happens when they get out? Schools not performing? Raise the standards and test, test, test – but, who foots the bill and where are all the qualified teachers going to come from and who decides what should go on the test? Need to pay for a war? Raid social security and deficit spend – but who is going to pay for the retirements of those already in the program and what spending will we cut in the future to balance the budget? What these “simple” solutions amount to are short-term solutions that usually end up causing a whole host of unintended and detrimental consequences, i.e. seat-of-the-pants management. But, these simple solutions have the attractive qualities of the impression of decisiveness and simplicity that one can easily understand. Therefore, they sell and they sell well.
The problem then becomes one of dealing with all the unintended consequences of simple-minded, short-term thinking. A problem exacerbated by the fact that no one from the BELIEF camp did any risk management or mitigation to deal with the possibility of unforeseen or unintended problems (see Iraq). So, more seat of the pants management. And, if anyone were to have the audacity to complain, then they are merely “Monday Morning Quarterbacks” (see former Chairman or the JCS, Treasury Secretary and now former Counter-Terrorism Czar).
Complex problems need to be investigated from every angle and the solution will most likely have to be equally complex. Often, the solution will have to promote the implementation of programs that will not lend themselves to cost benefit analysis over the short period. This is an anathema to BELIEVERS of all stripes - ironic considering the fact that most BELIEF systems deal in deferred rewards. This deferred result further complicates matters, as politicians need results in order to be reelected. This short-term thinking then leads to finger pointing and backbiting as each BELIEF system blames the other for the unintended consequences. This results in very little civil discourse and even less critical thinking.
With all this said, this does not mean that ideology is always bad or that we cannot draw great ideas from BELIEF systems. What it does mean is that managing, investigating and making decisions is NOT something that should be done by BELIEVERS. Our “problems” require a deep understanding of the context, scope and issues behind them – they require CRITICAL THINKING. They cannot be packaged neatly into ideological boxes and solved with equally simple solutions. If we allow ourselves to be ruled by BELIEVERS and their middlemen, then we are destined to be polarized and angry. Angry because we will never be solving problems, we will only be putting our finger in the next hole in the dyke, and polarized because we will spend our time arguing about whose finger should be used and which hole should be next.
So, after all of this, why does the Bush Administration bother me? They bother me because they are an administration of BELIEVERS. They are not evil men and women. They are not out to purposely screw the little guy. They are not out to reward any one company or organization - well, not any more than any other politician. They are not out to rule the world. They are simply applying their simple-minded solutions to the problems they have artificially simplified via their BELIEF system. Trickle down economic theory, peace through superior firepower, preemptive foreign policy, unregulated free markets, organizational self-policing, these are all BELIEFS. They aren’t the results of critical thinking or thorough investigation. They aren’t implemented to screw you or unduly reward anyone else, although that may be the unintended consequences of their actions. But, that is not why they implement their policies. They implement their policies because they BELIEVE that they are right. And, unless they are hit over the head with the proverbial bat, then they will not be dissuaded in their pursuit of their BELIEF.
The problem with this particular set of BELIEVERS is that they have an Army of middlemen that are there to ensure that the bat is never big enough. This army spends its time attacking the message, and more often the messenger, by impugning anything that doesn’t have a .05 or better confidence level or by attacking the messenger on a personal level. This is a very nifty trick that looks to use science against itself and looks to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger.
As is part and parcel of their ilk, they apply the science out of context. Very little in science has such high confidence levels, mostly because the scientists simply lack the time or resources to collect more data to make more accurate predictions of future behavior. The truly despicable nuance to this type of attack is that it kills two birds with one stone. By attacking the science behind an issue, using this dubious approach, they not only defend their position but also promote the position that further research would be useless, as they already know the answer. In this way they ensure that the prerequisite confidence level is never reached because resources to do further research will not be made available and they can continue on with their BELIEF system unimpeached and unchallenged. The problem with their approach with respect to the public is that many people don’t understand scientific methods or statistical mathematics well enough to understand which findings and conclusions are truly significant; hence the BELIEVERS using the confidence level of a study out of context to discredit the conclusions of the report. Therefore, people rely on these middlemen to interpret the “facts” and all the while these middlemen are using an intellectual slight-of-hand to present their biased side of the story in a way that is consistent with their BELIEF system. Odious is the word I would use.
If the message cannot be effectively attacked in this way, then this administration, and their minions – both official and unofficial – attack the messenger. Hey, if what they’re saying can’t be spun, then spin the messenger. The fear mongerer Senator Joe McCarthy was a master at this type of character assassination, especially when it came to those who rightly came after him. Give a reasoned rebuttal about why we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq and you are labeled a pacifist or unpatriotiotic. Show how tax breaks screw the American public and you are a liberal “tax & spender” who wants to socialize the free market by redistributing the wealth. Ask who was sitting on the energy policy board and how policy was developed and you are a nosey busybody environmentalist who wants to fight deregulation that will help the economy. It’s a very effective tool to muzzle criticism. And, with the right network in place, you have the capability to repeat an unfounded accusation enough to ensure those who are too lazy to check will be convinced that any accusation is fact. Once they are convinced that the messenger is a
, then his or her message is irrelevant, regardless of how factual it is.
Another tool from this tool box is the, “if you can’t answer the question about a policy or activity, then repeat the relevant policy and appeal to their emotions” tool. This is how it works: You ask, “Is the President concerned that the coalition is weakening in Iraq because of Spain’s intention to pull out.” The answer, “The President is committed to working with coalition to ensure that the free people of Iraq will be afforded every opportunity to pursue their new found freedom. We will stay as long as it takes to fight terrorism in Iraq and the world. The coalition is made up of many European countries and we are all committed to a safer world free of terrorism. Next question.” The next person asks, “So, does that mean the President is concerned about Spain intention to pull out of Iraq” The answer, “The President is committed to working with coalition to ensure that the free people of Iraq …” You get the idea. This is a very effective use of the non-answer answer tool or its cousin, the “speak a lot, but say a little” tool. This way, BELIEVERS can never be pinned down to an answer that would provide an opportunity to question their basic BELIEFS behind their policies or assertions. Listen to ANY White House press briefing and you will be schooled in the arts of Orwellian double-speak. I wonder if the Press Secretary feels the need to take a shower after each press conference?
What has been presented above represents the double-down defense of the ideologue, the BELIEVER, the Bush Administration. Protect the BELIEF at all costs, because it will all come tumbling down otherwise. “Do NOT look at the man behind the curtain!” The BELIEVERS currently in charge have mastered this game. Again, its not that they aren’t trying to fix the same problems, it’s their approach and the consequences of their approach that to me are the most damning. They aren’t evil and for the most part are probably intelligent and personable people. They WANT to do the right thing. But, the problem is that they frame and approach the problems as BELIEVERS and not critical thinkers.
The Bush Administration is shortsighted, self-righteous and arrogant. Their FAITH in their BELIEF system allows them to dismiss contrary evidence and to ignore the perceptions of the world and their detractors because they KNOW they are right. They KNOW they are right because they have insulated themselves within a system dedicated to keeping their particular BELIEF system intact as opposed to solving the actual problems they face. All of this is done despite growing evidence that runs contrary to their BELIEFS. They scoff at criticisms because no one has “proved” them wrong yet. Well, hard to provide proof when you must fight an army of BELIEF henchmen. Henchmen dedicated to preserving a system that limits access to those who pose challenges or questions too hard to dismiss or ignore using the standard tools of double speak and intellectual slights-of-hand.
This is why the Bush Administration bothers me. This is why they scare me. It’s the close-minded, single-mindedness and self-righteous approach that concerns me. There are times for decisiveness and single-minded determination, but in the world of politics, especially in a country of many complex problems and few simple ones like America, those times are few and far between. Most of our problems, and certainly the problems of the world, require much greater research, forethought and critical thinking than has been the hallmark of this administration. They have run roughshod over the American people and the people of the world using the tactics of a bully who BELIEVES he is right no matter what. Sometimes they have shown great leadership, but more often than not they have only demonstrated arrogance and a lack of intellectual depth.
I have finally put my finger on why this administration bothers me and it’s because they are BELIEVERS who want to shape the world in the image of their BELIEF system, excluding those who don’t prescribe to their BELIEFS, instead of shaping it into the best possible image it can be, within the constraints of the modern world, while including as many people as possible in the process. If you do not understand the difference, then I am afraid that this essay is probably lost on you.
