Monday, March 07, 2005
Morals in the Bush Administration
I am continually surprised and dismayed by the attribution of moral ideals as the motivation of Bush and his administration.
The Good vs. Evil approach to evaluating political and social issues does not leave room for rational thought to be a deciding factor in the outcome. Rationality is countenanced by moralistic leaders until the rational thought leads to a conclusion that is inconsistent with their faith-based beliefs. The next step is reverting to the teachings of the religion's "good book" as primal; the rational argument becomes the work of evil people trying to subvert the teachings of the "supreme" word.
This phenomenon is troubling, but it at least gives the moralists the benefit of the doubt as to motivation. They are assumed to be working for a positive outcome, even if the definition of "positive" means in conformance with their faith.
I have not seen this moralistic approach applied consistently in other spheres.
Corporate scandals: Bush connections with Ken Delay; Cheney connections with the oil industry; these parties with access to the administration get undue influence over policy decisions as well as "look the other way" treatment for actions that the society at large condemns. The "friends of George" generally come from the social class of people who probably cannot state their net worth within a million dollars, a million being relatively inconsequential to them. Shouldn't the judgments of these people be subjected to close scrutiny based on biblical teachings? After all, the rich man going to heaven (an indication of moral behavior on earth) is as easy as a camel going through the eye of a needle. Rich men were assumed by this religious teaching to be corrupt, greedy, cruel, an/or immoral in some way for this to be so.
Environmental policy: The Bush policies in this area have leaned toward "doing what we have to do" to meet our "need" for fossil fuels and the energy produced by them. The concept of stewardship is not taken seriously. A steward is one who "manages the property or affairs of others" presumably to safeguard them for the future. Doesn't the Bible tell believers that they are to take care of God's creations (e.g. the earth)? In what way can this administration claim to be pursuing these ends?
There are more examples to be made, but space is short. I believe that the "moral" stance taken by the Bush administration is an excuse for doing what is in their best interest. When the moral justifications don't support their actions, morality is not mentioned. Either the president is a hypocrite, or he simply does not have the depth of moral belief that has been portrayed.
The Good vs. Evil approach to evaluating political and social issues does not leave room for rational thought to be a deciding factor in the outcome. Rationality is countenanced by moralistic leaders until the rational thought leads to a conclusion that is inconsistent with their faith-based beliefs. The next step is reverting to the teachings of the religion's "good book" as primal; the rational argument becomes the work of evil people trying to subvert the teachings of the "supreme" word.
This phenomenon is troubling, but it at least gives the moralists the benefit of the doubt as to motivation. They are assumed to be working for a positive outcome, even if the definition of "positive" means in conformance with their faith.
I have not seen this moralistic approach applied consistently in other spheres.
Corporate scandals: Bush connections with Ken Delay; Cheney connections with the oil industry; these parties with access to the administration get undue influence over policy decisions as well as "look the other way" treatment for actions that the society at large condemns. The "friends of George" generally come from the social class of people who probably cannot state their net worth within a million dollars, a million being relatively inconsequential to them. Shouldn't the judgments of these people be subjected to close scrutiny based on biblical teachings? After all, the rich man going to heaven (an indication of moral behavior on earth) is as easy as a camel going through the eye of a needle. Rich men were assumed by this religious teaching to be corrupt, greedy, cruel, an/or immoral in some way for this to be so.
Environmental policy: The Bush policies in this area have leaned toward "doing what we have to do" to meet our "need" for fossil fuels and the energy produced by them. The concept of stewardship is not taken seriously. A steward is one who "manages the property or affairs of others" presumably to safeguard them for the future. Doesn't the Bible tell believers that they are to take care of God's creations (e.g. the earth)? In what way can this administration claim to be pursuing these ends?
There are more examples to be made, but space is short. I believe that the "moral" stance taken by the Bush administration is an excuse for doing what is in their best interest. When the moral justifications don't support their actions, morality is not mentioned. Either the president is a hypocrite, or he simply does not have the depth of moral belief that has been portrayed.
# posted by robdashu @ 4:36 AM 
