Berkowitz: The Insanity of Bush Hatred

Berkowitz is correct when he writes: “Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent”. However, the same argument is true when anyone (liberal or conservative) brings hatred to bear on their ideological enemies. We Americans take the complex issues of middle-east politics and all too often collapse them into a hatred of, say, Osama Bin Laden, whom _Time_ magazine recently presented as one of five exemplars of human evil, along with Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, and Pinochet. Sure we can hate Bin Laden for having killed thousands of Americans (even if that’s not quite the level of the Hitlerian, Cambodian, or Stalinist mass-murders). But is that really the most productive way to deal with the fact of Islamist terror?

I also disagree with you (at least to the level of agnosticism on the issue) when you say that Bush is decent. You know that from the tone of his voice? Frankly, I *don’t* know that Bush is decent or well intentioned. Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn’t, but the tone of his voice certainly won’t convince me one way or the other.

He sticks to his guns, (quite literally), and because of that he was the first US President to officially receive the Dalai Lama, over objections from our Chinese trading partners. That seems like a decent thing to do. On the other hand, if you look at the people he has surrounded himself with, there has been a distinct lack of ethical accountability among them. The president’s not an idiot, so why did he choose these people as his advisors and upper-level cabinet members if he’s through-and-through decent?

I daresay that those liberals who hate Bush do so for the same reasons that you think he’s a decent man: his political actions. They mostly disagree with them (and therefore ‘hate’ the man), you mostly agree with them (and therefore feel him to be a kindred spirit).

But, and here might be where we most disagree (although that’s strange given that we both seem to be influenced by Buddhism), I firmly believe that the natural state of humans is not one of rational self interest. Emotion intrudes on everything (as scientists continue to find out by putting fMRI machines on us). Politics breeds emotion (and all to often it’s fear, jealousy, anger, and an exclusive sense of belonging to a tribe, rather than anything resembling mudita). Indeed it’s the rare person who is self aware enough to recognize it when it happens (and it will happen) and not allow it to take over. (It’s hard for me not to feel displeasure towards you since you have different political leanings than I do, and yet you’ve never done anything *to me* to earn that displeasure).

America (and we’re not unique in the world in this, but perhaps still in a minority) is reason for hope though, because while we may profess to “hate” our leaders or our enemies, in the 21st century at least, we’ve rarely killed, fought, or imprisoned *our own* because of such hate.

I’ve felt the same way about Bush’s basic sincerity and decency. Still, don’t you think the potential appropriateness of hatred, or other intense responses, correlates with the power a person holds? When you get all the way up to US president, it’s really actions that count, much more than motives, because actions at that level are so, so, life-or-death consequential, for so many. And if he makes major, costly errors in decision-making, then yes, he deserves the negativity that comes his way; that’s part of what he signed up for. The president doesn’t get to be a “deer in the headlights”; that’s not acceptable, that’s not a moral pass. Some Bush hatred out there ~is~ insane and illiberal, and I wouldn’t defend that strain of it. But to my mind it’s just as misguided to think his motives redeem him as for his foes to let anger at his policies turn into something irrational and destructive. His motives just ~aren’t that relevant~ to the kind of moral calculus we have a right to make, and get emotional about too, qua citizens under his administration.

Ajasen and Austen: I’ve posted a response to you both … here.

Ajasen

What does ethnic accountability mean? A nod to that old disproven trope of his cabinet has to look like America? I think you are very wrong. He does not have numbers on his side, but, a more importantly his pick have had real power. Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas. First Black SecState, First Black Supreme Court Justice. I see your numbers and raise you quality.

Tyler Cowen has some related thoughts on the anthropology of ideology, here.