Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Bush and the Failure of Faith-Based Rationale
NOTE: My entry here is merely an analysis of and further commentary on an article by Ron Suskind that is linked in the text below. I encourage everyone to read the full article for an accurate and complete understanding of Suskind’s thesis. The work is 11 pages long, but a relatively quick read. And it is well worth the time.
As the November general elections approach, I become more convinced that the American public is about to make an enormous mistake. Despite the continuing (and growing) corrosion of the Bush Administration’s case for the Iraq war and the continuously escalating casualties in the Middle East and Afghanistan, domestic support for Bush has remained largely constant (and seemingly sufficient to carry the current President into another term). What this indicates, in my opinion, is that Americans either have bought into the need for war in Iraq irrespective of a rational and judicial justification or believe that Bush’s views on issues outside of foreign policy (or, more specifically, preemptive war in Iraq) outweigh the failure of his leadership in the War on Terror. Both types of Bush supporter display an inability or refusal to apply analytical reasoning as a guide to their political decision-making. The former fail because they support the war without any need for analytical or empirical justification; the latter fail because they largely support Bush’s policies on the environment, energy or morality – policies that Bush has based largely on faith in either his own, highly-specific version of Christianity or his own misguided and simply inaccurate beliefs regarding science, economics and politics.
A recent article in the New York Times Magazine – available on-line at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=d2355b163338765d&ex=1099142633 - highlights Bush’s faith-based decision-making process and the problems that flow from his blatant disdain for empiricism and analytical policy construction. The author, Ron Suskind, paints a frightening picture (largely pieced together through discussions with politicians and leaders of special interest groups from both sides of the aisle) of the current president as a man who is overly confident in his own “instincts” for governance and highly skeptical of rationales based in science or empiricism. Suskind refers to Bush’s as the “faith-based presidency.” In place of investigation, analysis and debate, Suskind argues, Bush would place rash conclusions rooted in little more than gut feelings and preconceived biases. According to Suskind, Bush views confidence and decisiveness as the paramount quality of the American President. Anything that undermines the appearance of confidence in his decisions, including debate or critical inquiry, is viewed as counterproductive and must be rooted out. As Suskind notes, “[t]his is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker.”
At this point, you might be thinking: “that’s neat, but who cares how Bush makes his decisions? Faith, instincts, gut feel – these all sound like good methods for leadership.” Well, as I detailed in an earlier entry, good leaders make decisions based on evidence and reason. Faith is a fickle instrument – while blind, gut-feel decisions may sometimes lead to favorable results, often such willy-nilly action will yield a low probability of success. Science, when applied correctly, will lead to a greater understanding of the relevant situation and thus give the decision-maker a vastly improved probability of success compared to faith-based “reasoning” alone. By acting impulsively on faith, gut feels and instincts at the expense of prudent deliberation, President Bush sabotages America’s opportunities for success.
Furthermore, the problems caused by Bush’s reliance on faith are exacerbated by his arrogant confidence in such careless bases for action. Not only is the bus driver blind, but he refuses to ask for directions from the seeing. Bush’s unflappable confidence in his own unexamined and irrational decisions has been mischaracterized (by his campaign managers) and misinterpreted (by his constituency) as “conviction.” This purported conviction is contrasted to the “flip-flopping” of Senator Kerry (who is, admittedly, a pure politician if there ever was one). But, as Kerry said in the first debate (paraphrasing): “you can be certain and still be wrong.” The blind bus driver may have faith in his chosen route, while heading down the wrong way on a one-way street. I think we can all agree that it would be wise of the bus driver to stop and turn around upon discovery of his error. But first, he has to ask those who would know and be open to evidence that may prove him wrong. Bush is apparently incapable of doing this. Suskind describes “[a] cluster of particularly vivid qualities…shaping George W. Bush's White House” including “a disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness, a retreat from empiricism, a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners.”
But, lacking real-world examples of Bush administration policy failure, all of this discussion is merely academic. Unfortunately, such examples abound. Most notable is the disaster in Iraq, a death trap into which our President placed our nation’s young men and women based largely on his personal faith in the veracity of one Iraqi ex-patriot’s (a man who is now on trial for embezzlement of Iraqi funds) rosy, utopian prediction that his soon-to-be invaded countrymen would welcome the United States’ violent invasion with open arms and a parade of flower petals. The war in Iraq is certainly the most prominent example of Bush’s failure to deliberate and analyze a complex foreign policy issue, but probably the most critical failure of the Bush administration’s “act now, think later” attitude to date has been the invasion of Afghanistan. Despite providing graphic displays of “shock and awe” as a violent nepenthe for the wounded and frightened soul of America, very little was accomplished in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and his top advisors escaped, and the seeds of the Al Qaeda terrorist network were spread on the winds to all four corners of the Earth. As Suskind notes, “[l]ooking back at the months directly following 9/11, virtually every leading military analyst seems to believe that rather than using Afghan proxies, we should have used more American troops, deployed more quickly, to pursue Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora.” Bush’s poor decisions in Afghanistan not only lead to failure of the mission, but have made Al Qaeda more dangerous and more difficult to apprehend.
Despite his failures, Bush is unwilling to waiver. Confidence in the President must be preserved at all costs. Those who criticize or even question the wisdom of the President’s rash judgments are ignored or denied access to the President. Those who support him are forced to swear loyalty oaths. Those who worship him as an American pharaoh, as God-as-King, are simply thanked and, notably, not rebutted by the President. Suskind details an intriguing (and frightening) dialogue between Bush and Gary Walby, a Bush supporter from Florida. When Walby informed the President that his administration was “the very first time that [he has] felt that God was in the White House,” Bush responded with a simple “thank you.” According to one Bush supporter quoted by Suskind, “[m]any conservative evangelicals ‘feel they have a direct line from God… and feel Bush is divinely chosen.’” It is almost as if Bush, who has often referred to the power of prayer and stated that his actions are guided by God’s will, welcomes such praise because he truly believes it. Bush, like the pharaohs of Egypt, either believes that he is the Earthly channel for God’s will or, just as dangerously, that fostering such a belief among the citizenry is healthy for the nation. To use an apropos allusion that is simply too serendipitous to pass up: the President’s supporters view him more as a burning bush, the Old Testament conduit of God’s voice to His chosen people, than George W. Bush, the all-too-human failed student, businessman and public speaker.
What is the conclusion of this analysis? I believe it is apparent that George W. Bush’s world-view is little more sophisticated than that of a 2 year-old child. Decisions are based on instinct, and the admission of failure is absolutely out of the question. Reality is ignored or, more dangerously, viewed as a toy of the American Empire, something that does not affect the environment of American policy, but is wholly shaped by it. Suskind’s account of his discussion with one of Bush’s top aides sheds light on the current administration’s view of the relationship between American action and ontology:
“The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'”
That says it all. President Bush is unconcerned with reality as it exists because, as God’s messenger (or, even God-on-Earth) in command of the world’s next great Empire, he is capable of dictating the course of the universe as he sees fit. He has no use for empirical data or careful study of world dynamics because, in his view, those dynamics are his for the molding. He alone may control the geo-political environment of a world of six billion people through unjustified shows of force. He alone may solve the nation’s moral problems by appointing reactionary, fundamentalist judges and supporting legislation inconsistent with constitutional principles. He alone can solve the world’s energy crisis by accelerating the depletion of the finite oil supply. But, if he can do this alone, without any deliberation, it begs the questions: Why do we need a Congress? Why do we need voters? Why do we need scientists, scholars or policy experts? Why do we need any deliberation between experts and intellectuals when we have a C student and failed businessman armed with confidence in his own uninformed gut feelings and the mandate of God?
As the November general elections approach, I become more convinced that the American public is about to make an enormous mistake. Despite the continuing (and growing) corrosion of the Bush Administration’s case for the Iraq war and the continuously escalating casualties in the Middle East and Afghanistan, domestic support for Bush has remained largely constant (and seemingly sufficient to carry the current President into another term). What this indicates, in my opinion, is that Americans either have bought into the need for war in Iraq irrespective of a rational and judicial justification or believe that Bush’s views on issues outside of foreign policy (or, more specifically, preemptive war in Iraq) outweigh the failure of his leadership in the War on Terror. Both types of Bush supporter display an inability or refusal to apply analytical reasoning as a guide to their political decision-making. The former fail because they support the war without any need for analytical or empirical justification; the latter fail because they largely support Bush’s policies on the environment, energy or morality – policies that Bush has based largely on faith in either his own, highly-specific version of Christianity or his own misguided and simply inaccurate beliefs regarding science, economics and politics.
A recent article in the New York Times Magazine – available on-line at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=d2355b163338765d&ex=1099142633 - highlights Bush’s faith-based decision-making process and the problems that flow from his blatant disdain for empiricism and analytical policy construction. The author, Ron Suskind, paints a frightening picture (largely pieced together through discussions with politicians and leaders of special interest groups from both sides of the aisle) of the current president as a man who is overly confident in his own “instincts” for governance and highly skeptical of rationales based in science or empiricism. Suskind refers to Bush’s as the “faith-based presidency.” In place of investigation, analysis and debate, Suskind argues, Bush would place rash conclusions rooted in little more than gut feelings and preconceived biases. According to Suskind, Bush views confidence and decisiveness as the paramount quality of the American President. Anything that undermines the appearance of confidence in his decisions, including debate or critical inquiry, is viewed as counterproductive and must be rooted out. As Suskind notes, “[t]his is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker.”
At this point, you might be thinking: “that’s neat, but who cares how Bush makes his decisions? Faith, instincts, gut feel – these all sound like good methods for leadership.” Well, as I detailed in an earlier entry, good leaders make decisions based on evidence and reason. Faith is a fickle instrument – while blind, gut-feel decisions may sometimes lead to favorable results, often such willy-nilly action will yield a low probability of success. Science, when applied correctly, will lead to a greater understanding of the relevant situation and thus give the decision-maker a vastly improved probability of success compared to faith-based “reasoning” alone. By acting impulsively on faith, gut feels and instincts at the expense of prudent deliberation, President Bush sabotages America’s opportunities for success.
Furthermore, the problems caused by Bush’s reliance on faith are exacerbated by his arrogant confidence in such careless bases for action. Not only is the bus driver blind, but he refuses to ask for directions from the seeing. Bush’s unflappable confidence in his own unexamined and irrational decisions has been mischaracterized (by his campaign managers) and misinterpreted (by his constituency) as “conviction.” This purported conviction is contrasted to the “flip-flopping” of Senator Kerry (who is, admittedly, a pure politician if there ever was one). But, as Kerry said in the first debate (paraphrasing): “you can be certain and still be wrong.” The blind bus driver may have faith in his chosen route, while heading down the wrong way on a one-way street. I think we can all agree that it would be wise of the bus driver to stop and turn around upon discovery of his error. But first, he has to ask those who would know and be open to evidence that may prove him wrong. Bush is apparently incapable of doing this. Suskind describes “[a] cluster of particularly vivid qualities…shaping George W. Bush's White House” including “a disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness, a retreat from empiricism, a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners.”
But, lacking real-world examples of Bush administration policy failure, all of this discussion is merely academic. Unfortunately, such examples abound. Most notable is the disaster in Iraq, a death trap into which our President placed our nation’s young men and women based largely on his personal faith in the veracity of one Iraqi ex-patriot’s (a man who is now on trial for embezzlement of Iraqi funds) rosy, utopian prediction that his soon-to-be invaded countrymen would welcome the United States’ violent invasion with open arms and a parade of flower petals. The war in Iraq is certainly the most prominent example of Bush’s failure to deliberate and analyze a complex foreign policy issue, but probably the most critical failure of the Bush administration’s “act now, think later” attitude to date has been the invasion of Afghanistan. Despite providing graphic displays of “shock and awe” as a violent nepenthe for the wounded and frightened soul of America, very little was accomplished in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and his top advisors escaped, and the seeds of the Al Qaeda terrorist network were spread on the winds to all four corners of the Earth. As Suskind notes, “[l]ooking back at the months directly following 9/11, virtually every leading military analyst seems to believe that rather than using Afghan proxies, we should have used more American troops, deployed more quickly, to pursue Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora.” Bush’s poor decisions in Afghanistan not only lead to failure of the mission, but have made Al Qaeda more dangerous and more difficult to apprehend.
Despite his failures, Bush is unwilling to waiver. Confidence in the President must be preserved at all costs. Those who criticize or even question the wisdom of the President’s rash judgments are ignored or denied access to the President. Those who support him are forced to swear loyalty oaths. Those who worship him as an American pharaoh, as God-as-King, are simply thanked and, notably, not rebutted by the President. Suskind details an intriguing (and frightening) dialogue between Bush and Gary Walby, a Bush supporter from Florida. When Walby informed the President that his administration was “the very first time that [he has] felt that God was in the White House,” Bush responded with a simple “thank you.” According to one Bush supporter quoted by Suskind, “[m]any conservative evangelicals ‘feel they have a direct line from God… and feel Bush is divinely chosen.’” It is almost as if Bush, who has often referred to the power of prayer and stated that his actions are guided by God’s will, welcomes such praise because he truly believes it. Bush, like the pharaohs of Egypt, either believes that he is the Earthly channel for God’s will or, just as dangerously, that fostering such a belief among the citizenry is healthy for the nation. To use an apropos allusion that is simply too serendipitous to pass up: the President’s supporters view him more as a burning bush, the Old Testament conduit of God’s voice to His chosen people, than George W. Bush, the all-too-human failed student, businessman and public speaker.
What is the conclusion of this analysis? I believe it is apparent that George W. Bush’s world-view is little more sophisticated than that of a 2 year-old child. Decisions are based on instinct, and the admission of failure is absolutely out of the question. Reality is ignored or, more dangerously, viewed as a toy of the American Empire, something that does not affect the environment of American policy, but is wholly shaped by it. Suskind’s account of his discussion with one of Bush’s top aides sheds light on the current administration’s view of the relationship between American action and ontology:
“The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'”
That says it all. President Bush is unconcerned with reality as it exists because, as God’s messenger (or, even God-on-Earth) in command of the world’s next great Empire, he is capable of dictating the course of the universe as he sees fit. He has no use for empirical data or careful study of world dynamics because, in his view, those dynamics are his for the molding. He alone may control the geo-political environment of a world of six billion people through unjustified shows of force. He alone may solve the nation’s moral problems by appointing reactionary, fundamentalist judges and supporting legislation inconsistent with constitutional principles. He alone can solve the world’s energy crisis by accelerating the depletion of the finite oil supply. But, if he can do this alone, without any deliberation, it begs the questions: Why do we need a Congress? Why do we need voters? Why do we need scientists, scholars or policy experts? Why do we need any deliberation between experts and intellectuals when we have a C student and failed businessman armed with confidence in his own uninformed gut feelings and the mandate of God?
