THE PRESIDENT OF GOOD AND EVIL
The Ethics of George W. Bush.
By Peter Singer
Text Publishing Company 2004,
Melbourne Victoria Australia
Reviewed by Margaret Setter.

Why bother to write a book about the ethics of George W. Bush? One might as well ask, ‘why bother to read such a book?’ Many people would regard the effort entailed as a waste of time; that Bush and ethics constitutes an oxymoron. It is easy to dismiss him as just another cynical politician, prepared to say whatever is necessary to maintain his hold on power. Singer is not so sure. He thinks the answer may be more complex than that.

Singer notes that Bush’s thinking on ethical questions is be important merely because he is president of the world’s only superpower. ‘He represents a distinctively American moral outlook, not of course one shared by all Americans, but nevertheless one that plays a more central role in American public life than it plays anywhere else’.

Singer is struck by how differently Americans think from Europeans, Australians, even Canadians, about social, political and ethical questions. He is undoubtedly correct although I would suggest that, at the level of popular culture, which is saturated with American influences, those differences have narrowed. That being so, I hope this book will be widely read by Australians.

Bush declares himself a “compassionate conservative”, a phrase that resonates with millions of Americans who, despite generations of betrayal by fallible and venal politicians, remain eager to be seduced by an ideology that portrays America as a Christian nation, fighting (a la the comic strip hero, ‘Superman’) a never-ending battle to promote the ideals of ‘Truth, Justice, and The American Way’. (1)

‘No other president in living memory has spoken so often about good and evil, right and wrong’. ‘Morality’, according to Bush, ‘is the same for every era, for every time and place’. America is ‘good’; its intentions and exercise of hegemonic power are benign, suggesting those who resist American dominance are by definition evil.

The following excerpt from Bush’s 1999 campaign speech is the key text for his philosophy of ‘compassionate conservatism’. Singer describes it as ‘inspiring’. As a single piece it is indeed, very moving. One needs to have read others of a similar genre to be able to recognise it for what it is, a set piece crafted by a professional speechwriter, who understand how to pull out all the stops in evoking a popular American mythology.

‘We will carry a message of hope and renewal to every community in this country. We will tell every American, ‘The dream is for you’. Tell forgotten children in failed schools, ‘The dream is for you’. ‘Tell families, from the barrios of LA to the Rio Grande Valley: ‘El sueno americano es para ti.’ Tell men and women in our decaying cities, ‘The dream is for you.’ Tell confused young people, starved of ideals, ‘The dream is for you’. (2)

Standing beside him was the mayor of Indianapolis, a Republican ‘lauded by conservatives for working with faith-based organisations to provide community services’.

Similar themes are explored in his 2001 Inaugural Address. Bush states, ‘America, at its best, is compassionate’, ‘Where there is suffering, there is duty’, statements intended to convince Americans that their government will not stand by and let market forces decide who will be the winners and losers. ‘This is my solemn pledge; I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity’.

This is a distinctively American philosophy of government, described by a former speechwriter as ‘folk libertarianism’. The ideal of equal opportunity enjoys wide support among Americans.

A few years earlier, Bush had composed the foreword to a book whose author Melvin Olasky suggests allocating taxpayer funds to organisations of this type. In 2001 the Federal budget was in surplus. Instead of allocating these extra funds towards programs for poverty reduction, his Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 actually widened the gap between rich and poor in America. ‘It’s your money’, he assured affluent Americans.

This is a prime example of the kind of muddled thinking Bush unveils in so many pronouncements. He believes a budget surplus indicates people have been overtaxed; therefore the morally right thing to do is to return tax moneys to those who were robbed and to lower the marginal tax rate for future years.

Does Bush really care about all Americans, or does he faithfully protect the interests of his ‘own kind’, the super-rich corporate executives and other members of his own privileged social class? The United States may be the world’s richest nation, but it certainly isn’t the happiest nation. One quarter of Americans live in poverty, including millions of homeless people forced to beg on the streets to eke out an existence. These surely are some of the ‘forgotten people’ to whom Bush promised, ‘The Dream is for you’?

On February 11, 2003, Professor George Akerlof, the 2001 economics Nobel Prize Winner, took out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times. Ten fellow Nobel Laureates were co-signers. Bush’s tax cuts were described as ‘horrendous’.

They predicted ‘a shortfall of tax revenues far into the future, including cuts to Medicare and social security, followed by long-term economic stagnation, higher interest rates, which in turn would increase the interest payments on the national debt.’ And as events unfolded their predictions were amply fulfilled.

Bush’s intuitive notion of fairness regarding across the board tax cuts is indefensible. We are social beings, imbricated in and dependent upon society for our continued existence. It is the social and economic organisation of a nation that makes possible (or hinders) the accumulation of wealth. Individuals and families who already enjoy a comfortable home with modern appliances, educational and entertainment aids, enjoy a huge advantage over those lacking such comforts. It is basic principle of social justice for the state to allocate social capital to poverty relief and other pressing problems brought about by social and economic inequality. In this instance, Bush’s ethic turns out to be meaningless. Yet, on several occasions, both in campaign speeches and as president, he continues to turn the tax issue into a vote for or against ‘big government’.

CULTURE OF LIFE

Six months after his inauguration he gave his first primetime television address to the American people on a question he identified as of prime importance, that is, whether the federal government should fund research into stem cells derived from human embryos? In this instance, the human lives in question were at the embryonic stage, each embryo a tiny cluster of cells only six days old, left over and unwanted from an invitro fertilization program. As they were redundant to the program they were to be destroyed.

Bush let it be known that he regards human embryos as ‘something precious to be protected’. Most ethicists were of the opinion that embryos at that stage of development could be used in ethical research projects. Scientists believe stem cells may offer new ways of treating a wide range of diseases that affect approximately 128 million Americans; for example, Parkinsons, juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injuries and heart disease.

After some searching, Bush discovered an ethicist who agreed with his view. He initiated legislation that refused federal funding for research involving the use of human embryos. After much debate and pressure he relented but it was discovered that the embryos were contaminated, rendering them unsuitable for use in research.

Bush’s concern for these unwanted embryos sits strangely with his apparent lack of concern for the billions of nonhuman animals incarcerated in US laboratories who, while fully conscious and denied pain relief, undergo painful and invasive experiments every year. Why is the life of an insensate embryo ‘something precious to be protected’ while that of a sentient, nonhuman animal is not? Singer asks.

Singer sees Bush’s grounds for opposition to abortion as based on the unargued assumption that human embryos are ‘ours’, that is, fellow human beings, while non-human animals ‘are not of our own kind’. The fallacy in this line of reasoning, he says, means ‘we have no comeback against racists who maintain that they ought to protect their own kind – by which they mean members of their own race, but not members of other races’.

As Governor of Texas, Bush signed on to one of the highest rates of capital punishment in America. When questioned over the disparity between his concern for six-days-old clusters of human cells and the life of a fully-grown man on death row, he responded, ‘The embryos are innocent, and killers are evil’. How defensible is this position? It is chilling to read of ‘the exultation, almost glee that appeared on Bush’s face when he spoke of the coming execution of men who had been convicted of murder’.

If Bush is genuine in his concern for a ‘culture of life’ why are the poorest ten percent of the population poorer -in absolute terms—than those in the poorest tenth of the populations of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland?

Disadvantaged citizens of these countries benefit from the provision of free health care services and a safety net of income support. ‘A Swedish family with children that is at the threshold of that poorest 10 per cent will have an income sixty percent higher than a similar family at the threshold of the poorest ten percent of Americans’.

Before being elected as president Bush was asked about his opinions on two issues; abortion and doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. On both issues he declined to state his intentions on the grounds that the Constitution allocates responsibility for these issues to the states. They would not concern him as president.

By the time he became president he had either forgotten or changed his mind. In line with his sanctity of life ethic, he overrode States rights by applying his presidential veto to a law reform measure permitting doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients in Oregon, even though the citizens of that state had voted for this reform in two referendums.

Singer devotes a chapter each to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that followed the destruction of the World Trade Centre on September 11 2001. Given the target of the attack, Singer remarks that it is not surprising that an American president should spearhead a war on terrorism. What is unusual is for Bush to conclude that America was attacked because ‘it is the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world’. What about America’s role in global politics, especially in the Middle East?

‘It therefore struck many people in other countries as a painful example of just how self-satisfied America is’.

Four years after the publication of this book the wars drag on with little hope of a successful resolution in sight. The Bush Administration is in dire straits financially, partly as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq, more generally from its policies of “Military Keynesianism”, pursued in the mistaken belief that huge military expenditures by the State can compensate for falling productivity relative to the economies of China, the European Union, India and other prospective challengers.

China is one of the major holders of United States Treasury Bonds. Every day of the week the US Treasury is forced to pay out over $2billion dollars in interest payments simply to stand still. Should the OPEC nations decide to demand their share of interest payments in Euros rather than US dollars, The United States economy will be in dire straits indeed. Only its overwhelming military power protects the US from World Bank intervention that is the common fate of less fortunate nations. When the history of this period is written it will surely reveal how disastrous the Bush ethic has been for America and the world.

1. http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/josh- grayson1

2. http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyreader$383

3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/inaugural-address.html