A Fundamentalist Against Bush
Chuck Baldwin is a fundamentalist who has protested at abortion clinics and helped Jerry Falwell register "more than fifty thousand new conservative voters" when Reagan was running...and more. But he deplores what the Religious Right has become:
The willingness of the Religious Right to give President Bush king-like subservience is easily seen in the way they demonize anyone who dares to oppose him. This is very unnerving.Are we heading for a modern day religious inquisition, this one led not by the Catholic Church but by the Religious Right? Are we witnessing the type of marriage between Church and State that America's founders originally feared?
I used to believe that liberals were paranoid for being fearful of conservative Christians gaining political power. Now, I share their trepidation.
Of course, the sad truth is, neither George W. Bush nor the Republican Party in Washington, D.C. represents genuine Christian or even conservative principles. If they did, they would take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and then neither liberals nor conservatives would have anything to fear, for the U.S. Constitution protects the rights and freedoms of all men.
Unfortunately, when the seed of Bush's unconstitutional policies come to fruition, it will produce large scale fallout economically, socially, and politically. And sadder still will be that, instead of blaming Bush's infidelity to constitutional government and conservative principles, people will blame Christianity and conservatism itself. The result of this miscalculation will doubtless be a massive tide of support for more and greater unconstitutional government, but only under a different name.
"Unfortunately, when the seed of Bush's unconstitutional policies come to fruition, it will produce large scale fallout economically, socially, and politically."
... and internationally. The fallout has already been tremendous, actually. It beggars the imagination. The current damage overseas - at least in Europe - will take generations to undo, if ever.
L'Amerloque
L'Amerloque at December 20, 2004 11:22 AM
Are you talking about America's reputation? Please elaborate.
eric at December 20, 2004 5:09 PM
Hi !
>>Are you talking about America's reputation?
Yes, and more. Take one example. The Bush Administration's refusal to apply or even to recognize the Geneva Convention(s) has both direct and indirect results. Constitutionally speaking, since the US has recognized the GC, they are part of US law (as is any correctly-ratified treaty) and the Administration is bound to obey them. Calling them "quaint" as the newly-nominated Attorney General did in a memo during his past tenure does nothing to change that fact.
Furthermore, if the enemy know that America doesn't respect the GC, why should the enemy afford the protection of the GC to captured or wounded American or "coalition" troops ?
Skirting and flouting international law in this manner while all the while repeatedly asserting "We have rule of law in America ! Don't forget it !" is really not the way to win - or keep - friends overseas. Holding people in detention without the due process, whether at the borders or at Guantanamo, that Americans in the past have died for ? The fact that there even seems to be a debate on this in the USA is, quite frankly, astonishing. The effect that this has had on heretofore friendly populations abroad who believe in or aspire to democracy is chilling and must not be underestimated.
US actions overseas obviously cannot be divorced from the policies at home. Can a country transgress constitutionality at home, act unconstitutionally in an international capacity - and still maintain its integrity as well as its credibility ?
In spite of Bush and his administration's actions until then, there was a tremendous outpouring of sympathy for the USA throughout Europe subsequent to the 9/11 attacks. Even Le Monde in Paris ran the huge headline "Nous Sommes Tous Des Américains". When one is familiar with the visceral anti-Americanism displayed by that newspaper … it's as though the NYT had endorsed the Red Sox to win the Series. Unheard of. Since then there have been rivers of water - and blood - under the bridge and there is less and less sympathy left, at least for the USA as a country.
As the icing on the cake, the American people re-elected Bush - so the world received a message which is loud and clear: the American people agree with and approve of what the administration has done, continues to do and is planning on doing. The ballot box proved that. (A caveat here: if, naturally, the elections were honest. A lot of overseas Americans are baffled by the inertia among homeland Americans, whether about the six exit polls in six states favoring Kerry which at the end of the day morphed into Bush victories ( ... six errors ?! ), the Enron scandal, or creeping controls on travel. Remember the USSR internal passports ? Approved travelers ? It seems that personal freedoms are falling by the wayside.)
US actions in Afghanistan, felt generally to be justified since this supposed "Bin Laden" character was allegedly there, were once accepted, but are now roundly condemned. US actions in Iraq are considered illegal and barbaric; to some they are outright war crimes (Executing wounded prisoners ? Sounds like Malmedy.). The reputation of the USA is at a historic post-WW2 low: not among those who govern, but among the populations, which see on TV, day after day, reports from Afghanistan and Iraq which are opposite to those being shown to the American people.
Regularly the press in Europe is filled with articles describing how a French / British / Danish / Italian citizen / family / reporter was hassled at US customs because of some "security" issue like a Swiss Army knife or an illegible signature. Stories of children separated from their mothers and put into "centers" appear, as do "in depth" articles about Rednecksville, USA, where fire-and-brimstone preachers urge the US troops to rise up and smite the infidel, as it were. When screened on prime-time TV, just after an Imam calls for the Muslim version of fire-and-brimstone, there just doesn't seem to be much difference, excepting scale, to the average European. Add to this the incessant loops on CNN International showing Americans "praying for victory" or "praying for hostage release" or "praying for Bush": average Europeans may be forgiven for tarring both sides with the same brush. Europeans had hundreds of years of bloody religious conflict and see no reason to go back in time.
Quickly, some international fallout - more than reputation - that springs to mind, in no particular order:
- Politicization of and ensuing decline in humanitarian aid. When "Medecins Sans Frontieres" pulled out of Afghanistan, this was front page news in Europe for a week. MSF (which won the Nobel Prize, let's not forget) pulled out because they couldn't do their jobs properly after the USA had constantly distributed leaflets saying "If you want humanitarian aid, denounce a Taliban. Otherwise no aid for you !" MSF – and other groups – felt that's not what humanitarian aid is about. The USA has been universally condemned for politicizing such aid. That's apparently one of the main reasons that aid organizations have been exiting Iraq, too - in addition to some media-friendly beheadings here and there, of course.
- Significantly fewer foreign students coming to study in the USA. The stats show that international student enrollment has dropped in almost all US educational institutions, reversing a trend that has existed since just after WW2. Reasons given are loss of respect for the "American Dream" and "America", visa hassles and delays, and ostracism, if not racism. The theory is that young foreign people (especially future decisionmakers) are supposed to come to the USA to study and then go back home to succeed, all the while praising how good America really is, because they spent some time there. Now students are going to other countries – and finding that those countries, unheralded until now, offer excellent educations and are just as democratic and free, if not more so in some respects, than the USA. This drop in student enrollment is a catastrophe in the long-term … one can ask oneself if it's even on the Washington politicos' radar screens.
- Businesses are complaining that their overseas people are unable to obtain visas in a timely manner. Even some scientific symposia are apparently affected by this visa/visit problem. Other countries are moving into the void, organizing scientific events in their own countries, to their advantage. US companies are delocalizing some research centers overseas. Sure, one reason is smaller salaries for researchers, but another reason is the incessant visa / travel hassle. A figure of $25 billion in lost business this year due to visa hassles was bandied about a few months ago by an organization representing US firms. How much will it be in one or two years' time ?
Curtailed abortion rights ? Creationism vs. Evolutionism ? Stem-cell research ? Europeans are rubbing their eyes in bewilderment, or, as though they were hung over, as the brilliant French ex-Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine said on the day after Bush's re-election: "Il y aura sans doute une sorte de gueule de bois dans l'opinion mondiale ..."
Finally, add to all this the sheer contempt for the USA expressed in some organizations and families. I'm American, but I've been here so long that people don't realize that. I talk the French talk, and I walk the French walk (if you'll suffer me such a pompous, smirking, self-satisfied statement (smile)). I deal with non-Americans almost exclusively and some of the conversations I've had and choices I've seen made - especially since Iraq - are truly troubling, if not deeply worrying.
L'Amerloque
L'Amerloque at December 21, 2004 11:41 AM
Thanks -- a terrifically comprehensive post.
"Il y aura sans doute une sorte de gueule de bois dans l'opinion mondiale"
There will be, without a doubt, a sort of hangover in the world opinion.
Indeed.
It's scary how much damage has been done in so little time. "Well, screw everybody else," say the jingoists like Rush Limbaugh, at precisely the time we should be global as well as local in our orientation. Plus, on a pure self-interest level, maybe you need the cooperation of other countries some day. Plus, it's just kind of horrible and sick to behave like an isolated imperial theocracy after all these years on the side of constitutionality and against "nation-building" or whatever George Bush decried before he decided to avenge daddy or for whatever fucked up reason he went into Iraq to chase Saddam after Osama attacked the WTC.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2004 2:21 PM
Thanks for the elaboration L'Amerloque.
Most of what you talk about is dividing America within as well. I talk to about 30-50 people a day, from all over America, and almost without fail everyone says they are just not into the holidays this year. Families and friends are feuding over this war, social issues, and the economy.
Does the general mood seem to be the same over in France?
eric at December 21, 2004 6:49 PM
Hi !
(Sorry for the delay - I was on the road.)
>>Does the general mood seem to be the same over in France?
Well ... this is holiday time in France, make no mistake about it. The stores are full and, apparently, consumers are spending in record numbers both in person and on line. The vacation venues are apparently full, too, according to news reports (there are more cars on the road, at least in Normandy). Christmas is _the_ family holiday (no "Thanksgiving" here !) and the French are very, very big on family.
War(s) and terrorism ? ... There's no real debate about Iraq. Few people give a hoot about what's happening there. Sure, events are deplored overall, but the opinion is generally "The Americans were wrong to start a war, and now they'll just have to live with it. They broke it, now they can fix it. They can pay for it, too." The people's opinion, for once, is reflected by that of the French government. The release of the two French hostages has brought Iraq to the forefront in the news, of course, and that's as it should be, but it will have little effect on the French people's feelings. The TV and radio news cover Iraq but, au fond, not too many people really seem to care, with the exception of those who worry what impact(s) the conflicts in the Mideast generally are having on the Muslim immigrant community. They are worried. The "war" which concerns average people here is the one in the Ivory Coast, where French peacekeepers are engaged. Logique.
One rarely has a conversation at dinner about politics, unless one is a politician or moves in such arcane spheres. No one in their right mind talks politics at the dinner table in France with casual acquaintances. When I say casual acquaintance, I mean someone you've known for, say, less that twenty or so years. I'm not joking. People don't just blurt out their opinions and feelings to all and sundry here. I know men approaching retirement who have not seen fit to tell their wives how big a salary they pull down. One would absolutely never talk politics at one's own dinner table. I've known my in-laws for almost thirty years and I have _never_ spoken politics with them. I don't know if they are interested in politics, if they vote left or right, or even if they vote at all. This is normal. One doesn't hear of too many French families riven by political discord. Undoubtedly there are, but certainly not to the extent we hear of in the USA.
There has been terrorism here for many years (Basque separatists, Corsican and Breton self-rule proponents, and the like) and so people do pay some attention to packages lying around and strange occurrences in the subway, but the alleged US "war on terrorism" is given pretty short shrift. People here are pretty fatalistic about it. If the soldiers patrolling at the airport or in town have magazines in their assault weapons, one worries since there is apparently some kind of alert.. If not, it's just for show. Since the Madrid bombings, people have been more leery.
Social issues on the boil here (generally put on hold during the "fêtes de fin d'année") include.
- keeping the one-size-fits-all educational system alive;
- keeping the national health insurance scheme in good shape;
- keeping the retirement system viable; and
- dealing with integration of Muslim - and other - minorities within the bounds of French secularity.
Actually, another big social issue this year has been "road safety" and bringing the number of traffic accident deaths down. There's no particular debate about "abortion" (legalized here), nor is there any debate about "religious values" or "core values" in the general American sense. It was front page news a while back when some survey in the US asked Americans "Do you believe in angels ?" and something like 70% (72% ? 74 % ? I've forgotten the exact figure ...) said "Yes.". The news here was not about the size of the number, but how such a question could even be asked in this day and age. Of course people are worrying about the economy and unemployment, which is severe in France (a constant in France for a number of years, now). The strong euro is putting a damper on all the economies in Europe.
One social issue, though, which is never put in abeyance during the holidays is "la lutte contre l'exclusion", i.e., "the struggle against exclusion": making sure that everyone participates fully in French society and that no one is left along the wayside ("Personne ne doit rester au bord de la route".) The French idea of "participation" is not necessarily the same as the one we have in the USA. Even with the welfare system here, there are people who require food and shelter, all year around. There are hundreds, even thousands, of organizations across France to help the disadvantaged: food, shelter, education, employment; counseling, you name it. The vast majority are secular: few of them are faith-based, compared to the USA. At Christmas time, one participates. During the year, one participates. Foreigners might think the French are mean-spirited, stingy and self-centered, but in my experience and judging from the "solidarité" I've seen around me on a daily basis, that is something of a myth.
To close, here's an anecdote. In the early 1980s, when the Solidarity Trade Union in Poland was just starting to make news, the Paris City Hall said (I paraphrase) "Alors, let's charter a truck and freight some staples to Danzig to be distributed to Solidarnosc. We'll rent an 8-ton truck and try to fill it with canned sardines, spaghetti and other pasta, toilet paper, toothpaste, stuff like that. We'll put the whole list of what's needed on the news and ask the people of Paris to contribute in kind. They can start bringing in the stuff to City Hall, say, Saturday." This went on the air and in the papers on Wednesday. On the appointed Saturday at noon there were already 16 tons of staples piled everywhere. By the end of the weekend, when the action was supposed to have ended, there were over 80 tons. At the end of the week over 700 tons of food had been donated. This really showed proof of the "lutte contre l'exclusion". There's no division in societal opinion about it. One helps one's neighbor, here. It's bread cast on the waters, since what goes around, comes around and when one needs help in turn, there will be some. This "lutte contre l'exclusion" is one of the recurring themes of French life, one of the great "social issues" here.
L'Amerloque
L'Amerloque at December 24, 2004 11:57 AM