Outis

The “seamless garment” is a theological term referring to the need for consistency within Christian morality and philosophy. I argue that there is no inconsistency between President George W. Bush’ s objectives in invading Iraq and his continuing approval of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or his appointment of former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez to the position of Attorney General. There is no inconsistency, that is, if one believes that the president’s objectives—and those of his advisors—were primarily to make a show of force.

First, a familiar question: Why did the Bush administration invade Iraq?

Many explanations and justifications have been offered by parties across the political spectrum and throughout the world.

But the explanation I now embrace is that George W. Bush and company wanted to give the Arab world a “show of force” and to do so they chose to dominate a state in the Middle East.

For obvious reason, Iraq, under the reign of the despot Saddam Hussein, became the most acceptable target for such a power play while the terrorist attacks against the United States, carried out largely by Saudi nationals on September 11, 2001, provided the occasion.

The reasons stated vs. the reasoning demonstrated

In the absence of any credible evidence that would buttress the previously stated rationale for invading Iraq (weapons of mass destruction) and in the face of mounting evidence that such claims were at best trumped up and at worst simply fabricated, we are now told that the invasion was to spread democracy and freedom.

If we are to believe that bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq are the intended good which justifies many an evil means, then it is only logical that we should find the same animus expressed throughout the political history of George W. Bush and his intimate advisors.

In fact, the President’ s record, and that of his innermost circle, betrays the contrary impulse: an understanding of politics that is based, almost exclusively, on domination and is thus, by its very nature, inextricably linked with such techniques as humiliation and destruction. (Whether one should call such uses of power a form of politics is a question for another day.)

The actual politics of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and advisor Karl Rove are, ostensibly, mostly and most clearly expressed on the domestic front. Yet even at home, this alliance has demonstrated it is possessed of the same militaristic mentality evinced in Iraq: a scorched-earth, winner-takes-all approach to every contest.

What interests Bush and company, on the home front, is domination. That appraisal is based on the now well-documented transformation of the U.S. Congress into an instrument of the executive branch and the concurrent campaign to do likewise with the judiciary.

In both of the presidential elections through which President Bush has commanded the reins of the state, his majority has been slim and the tenor of the debates overwhelmed by vicious character assassinations (both against members of his and his opposing parties).

Yet, despite the bitter stench of sulphur which lingered across the land on the morning after each of these elections, Bush and company have approached both the polity and fellow politicians as if the outcome in these contests had been an unequivocal and unanimous victory for their agenda; an agenda which, in many ways, has yet to be fully disclosed.

The leader of a deeply divided polity does not categorically rule out compromise unless, of course, he cares not a whit for the principles of democracy.

As for freedom, one need not even ask what kinds of social laws and mores the president has championed; though, of course, these are worthy of a deep and sustained analysis.

Rather, as has always been and forever will be the case: the true test of a man’ s respect for freedom is in his own domain, where the temptation to trample liberty is greatest and the price to be paid for such transgressions almost always seems to be nil.

So it is that the clearest evidence that Bush and company are not the least interested in promoting freedom is the vehemence (and, often, virulence) with which members of the President’ s party are policed and kept “on message,” in lockstep with the Oval Office, on almost every issue.

If the ruler does not tolerate dissent within his own party, how will he look upon his detractors in opposing camps—let alone, in foreign lands?

The seamless garment

Given that there is nothing in Bush and company’ s approach to domestic politics, past or present, which can corroborate his administration’ s stated goals of waging war on Iraq to bring it democracy and freedom, we must conclude that their reasons for doing so are, in fact, consonant with some other set of values. I suggest these values stem from a politics of domination.

Those of us who view the world through the framework of liberal democracy must look past our prejudices to see such an agenda clearly. While there is certainly a moral dimension to conquest—and ample historical evidence that all who wish to dominate are warped and deformed by this desire—there are also many seemingly pragmatic justifications for this understanding of power.

Simply put, subjugation is expedient. It may not be, in the long run, as expedient as persuasion but that drawback has seldom dissuaded those with the means from engaging in short-sighted campaigns of total war.

There is one more reason why I believe the true rationale for Bush and company’ s war against Iraq is indeed subjugation: the torture.

If the actual goal of conquering Iraq is to ward off potential anarchic and/or state-sponsored terrorist groups, and if one asserts that this mission will only be accomplished if the population from which it is assumed such threats may emanate is vanquished, whether morally or physically, then any acts of torture, any seemingly wanton killing perpetrated by the President’ s own forces are, in fact, quite reasonable.

Whereas Abu Ghraib and a war for democracy are at odds, Abu Ghraib and a war of domination are not at odds. In a war of subjugation, the rules of engagement must naturally include torture. In this light, Donald Rumsfeld has not been fired because he is fighting the war according to the President’s wishes.

Only those, within the armed forces and without, who reject such a strategy fault the abuse of U.S. power in Afghan and Iraqi. For those who understand the war against Iraq as the symbolic defeat and literal colonization of an expendable people, such sensational displays of violence are, in fact, precise uses of U.S. power. They are part and parcel of the “shock and awe” campaign which previously called for laser-guided missiles.

Once again, those of us who view torture as a fundamental abuse of power have an understanding of power that is based on the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate sources of authority. If your view of power is that it grants authority to whomever wields it, whether such power is attained by legitimate or illegitimate means, anything done with said authority is necessarily “wholesome.”

A politics of domination may provide just such a view of power.

Moreover, there is no need to “win the peace” if the objective is to wage war—perhaps, forever.

Recall the utter disdain that Bush and his handlers demonstrated for “nation building” in the 2000 presidential campaign. Consider the administration’s apparent and colossal lack of preparation: the disastrous shortage of troops, the shoddy budget estimates, the lack of resources and alliances. Are these really mistakes or the characteristics of a war waged for the sake of waging war?

Who controls the street?

Perhaps, then, the true tragedy of Bush and company’ s war against Iraq is that even on these terms, it has been a failure. There is only one criterium for evaluating the success of a conquest: who controls the streets?

The U.S. forces, under the leadership of the Command in Chief, President George W. Bush, do not control the streets of Iraq.

In fact, those streets are increasingly under the control of parties very much similar to Bush and company: men who wish to dominate the public square and will use any available means (religious language, a morality police, physical violence) to do so.

Science teachers and scientists around the world are missing out on an excellent opportunity to advance their cause.

The current (recurring?) controversy over “natural selection” as a subject of grammar school education in the United States presents the rational world with a very prominent stage upon which to not only expose those who question evolution as poseurs, but also, and more importantly, to help keep all of us of in a critical frame of mind.

Could it be that the parents who are asking for evolution to be challenged in the classroom on religious grounds are actually making a cry for help that, if answered, could benefit the whole world?

Could it be that with every person who answers a telephone poll saying “Honestly, I don’t know if evolution is or isn’t true,” there’s probably a person who could then say “Why don’t you tell me if it is. I’m open from 8pm to the 10 o’clock news.”

Heck, who doesn’t enjoy a good trial of the known world every century or so? Every year? A new gameshow? “Test the Enlightenment?”

Personally, I hate trying to market a product (e.g., liberalism) with a warning like: “If they win, we all lose.”

I’d much rather promote a gameshow where “We all win.”

If you think that sounds hokey: dig a little deeper. The answer to the rhetorical question “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” is pretty much the same as my slogan above. We all want to winners. Hence, we all want to be millionaires.

Let’s watch!

In response to recent speech acts in California, as summarized by George Skelton in the L.A. Times.

Racism, like other poisons, tends to be odorless, tasteless, invisible. It collects in our words and accumulates in our laws. Undetected and untreated, racism eventually attacks the heart of our society: the premise that all men are created equal.

In retrospect, racism is easy to detect. One need only go looking for bodies, whether of corpses hanging from trees or families on sale in public markets as “24/7 workers.” But in the present tense, our prejudices are far less obvious.

In the California of 2005, you will not find the racism that we now associate with the American South of 1805. But if you listen carefully to the hearts of men, you’ll hear it, all the same, beating its telltale drum. The drum of civil war between men whose only difference is their place of birth.

And what does this drum sound like?

Some call them “illegal aliens.” It’s a legal term, no doubt. But most Californians don’t use arcane legal terms in daily conversation. We don’t say “Vehicular License Fee” when we mean “the car tax.” Likewise, we don’t say “illegal aliens” when we don’t mean “criminal foreigner.”

They are criminal, we are told, because they entered the U.S. without permission from the U.S. federal government. Unlike other matters of dispute between citizens and the government, this breach concerns outsiders to whom we would rather not give the benefit of the doubt.

So we say “They should stand in line like the legal immigrants.” As if there were one line.

In the real world, however, there are several lines, separate and not equal.

There is the line for white men from Austria. It’s a very short line, in fact. You need only fly in as a tourist and then find someone to contract you for a spell until you can file for residency. Right beside this all-but-nonexistent line, there are others, far longer.

These are the lines for colored people from poor countries like Guatemala, Mexico and El Salvador. Unlike, say, a now famous high school graduate from Austria, these grammar school drop-outs from Central America are survivors of actual wars. They are the socioeconomic refugees of failed states and dictatorships.

Their lines are long because they were born in the wrong country, they were born into poverty. Had they been born in the right country, a rich country, or, had they simply been born into wealth, then the lines shift.

Legally, of course, every one is equal, etc. and so on. In practice, the lines between rich and poor, white and colored, Mexican and Austrian, legal and illegal are seldom as straight.

Consider the other crime of the “illegal aliens”—their failure to pay federal and state income taxes. As a matter of conversation, it is a damning attack.

For even though we can no longer accuse them of collecting welfare (they can’t), or failing to pay sales and real estate taxes (they do), or not spending their money in the U.S. (over 90%), or stealing from the social security trust fund (to which they are net contributors), we can still rail against the illegals for failing to pay income taxes.

Of course, most income taxes are paid by employers and no employer will admit to hiring illegal workers. But we don’t fault the employers for failing to pay these taxes, we fault the employees.

If you had illegal income, would you claim it on your tax returns? As a matter of fact, the I.R.S. acknowledges it is owed billions by right outstanding citizens who are not entirely honest.

Of course, there’s a big difference between a white lie and a lie told by a brown person, particularly when the color of your skin cannot be camoflagued by the amount of green in your pocketbook.

We blame the illegals for beign shiftless. Then, when we learn that illegals work two jobs a day, every day, we blame them for what their employers fail to do: honor labor laws, pay taxes on wages earned.

We accuse the illegals of being an ignorant, unschooled lot. Then, when we learn that our public schools are providing their children an education, we accuse them of using up resources intended for “our children.”

Yes, we now live in an America filled with legal and illegal children. Once again, we live in an America where schoolbooks and pencils are for some children, but not others. A level playing field, indeed.

Of course, double standards are the very logic of racism. We take offense at the appearance of a billboard for a spanish-language television station which claims to be serving “Los Angeles, Mexico.” Naturally, we hold place names like Germantown, Pennsylvania, Germantown, Maryland, Germantown, Winsconsin, Germantown, Ohio, and Germantown, New York to a different standard.

None of what I have just written will surprise even the most diehard and vociferous enemies of the illegal alien. No doubt, they will wish to refute my claim that race matters, that the line between right and wrong, legal and illegal, is often drawn around the color of one’s skin.

They will likewise take issue with my argument that money—or a lack thereof—is at the heart of the matter and that our renewed hatred of the illegal is really just the same old scorn for the poor.

I welcome any refutation that Americans from Latin America, illegal aliens some or all, aren’t the new niggers in town.

Update: Well, I was wrong. In some parts of the U.S. the provocative statement above may be true, but, for the most part, it’s gays who have become the new boogie men. Really, it’s official.