[Phew! I am back from a rather lengthy walk into waters I have not waded in since 1998. I will spare you the details. But I believe it all is ended (or ending) rather well. I mean, at least no one got hurt.
But there is something odd about a debate, really. It sure sharpens the mind, but does it do the cosmos any good? I mean, not a person will have changed his or her mind in the debate I just had elsewhere, right? Is there anything gained in such strivings other than to hone one's argument?
I can't answer this.]
[Added, 12.4.06: Just take a look at this Paul Krugman column (of The New York Times) and the subsequent comments thread. Emblematic? Perhaps. Eye-opening? You bet. Relevant to what follows? Indubitably.]
Today I think about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. You know who he was: that brilliant and lovely Christian scholar and theologian who was executed by the Nazis for his role in a failed assassination attempt of the Führer. I think about him because President Bush is in Jordan as I write.
You see, we have heard much rhetoric in this country (the United States) and the world that President George W. Bush is "worse than Hitler." He is the "most dangerous man on the planet." One world leader (so to speak), Hugo Chavez, has referred to Bush as Satan, and this as Chavez pretended to sniff the "sulphur" left by President Bush at the podium of the United Nations. Even officials of Venezuela have publicly declared that to call President Bush a Nazi is to disrespect real Nazis. Here's what Chavez and some of his countrymen said about the President after the midterm elections earlier this month (reported by FoxNews):
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez thinks the thumping Democrats gave the GOP isn't nearly enough punishment for President Bush.
He's calling for "the most severe sentence this planet has to offer" against the man he calls a "genocidal president."
This as Venezuela's National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution demanding that President Bush explain what it calls the "self-inflicted attack on the World Trade Center."
Venezuela's Foreign Affairs Commission took a different tack— it is calling a government-sponsored exhibition showing President Bush dressed as a Nazi storm trooper "unfair".... Unfair to the Nazis. A spokesman calls Hitler "a babe in arms compared to Bush."
And this is merely the rhetoric coming from a leader in the West. Think of what it is being uttered in the Middle East.
Now, sadly, many people believe this all to be true. I know a woman who lives nearby who has pasted to the bumper of her Volvo wagon "Bush/Cheney '04: Sieg Heil!" So I do not need to go far to find such nasty rhetoric. I am surrounded by it, and I am in New Hampshire. But if this all comes so easily to so many people, then it must be asked with all due candor: Should President Bush, since he is "worse than Hitler," be assassinated? Why, or why not?
I think of President Bush, and I strain myself to recall a single time I have heard any "hate speech" come out of his mouth. I don't know if I have even heard him besmirch his enemies: I beg readers to find one public slur the President has uttered against Hugo Chavez, for example. What about a particular race -- has the President slurred any racial group? Has he spoken genocidally?
What I believe is poised to happen, merely by the force of rhetoric released in the world and, most importantly, in this country, is the assassination of President Bush. He is the most endangered man on the planet. Sadly, it will be millions of his own countrymen who have stigmatized him as the anti-Christ. I would not be surprised to learn that someone outside this country felt that, in killing President Bush, the assassin was helping to deliver America from tyranny.
Today, the most hated man in the world is travelling through volatile regions. In this he shows incredible courage and, yes, leadership. His detractors claim the President and his family have not paid any price in the President's sending of troops to Iraq. But I have shown in this blog already that such claims are foolish and empty. The President invaded Iraq for this noble (but arguable) reason: freedom produces peace. He believes freedom and democracy are our best commodities to share with others; and that peace and democracy make great allies. Ironically, the President is trapped in paradox: the man who most vociferously spoke for freedom is the least free person in the world. George W. Bush, even if he is never assassinated, will NEVER be free again, nor will his family: they are surrounded by a prison wall of protection from which they will never emerge. And this because the President believes in freedom, democracy, and the liberation from tyranny. He has already paid an unbelievably high price. And the fomenters rage.
The rhetoric of the leftists in this country, rhetoric that has not once been softened or rebuked by Democratic leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, is as acid and dangerous as Hugo Chavez'. And to think most of the leftists in this country voted for members of the Democratic Party a few weeks ago. Just ask yourself how many times you've heard a single Democrat go out of his way to denounce these hideous assaults on the President. What Democrat has defended Bush's honor, his integrity? (Joe Lieberman? the senator many Democrats denounced as well?) Let it be stated that the leftists believe Bush and Cheney are evil, evil incarnate. Let it be also stated that the many people who believe 9/11 did not happen as we know it did, actually believe George Bush and his minions orchestrated that awful attack; and let it be stated that these conspiracy-theorists also voted against Republicans a few weeks ago.
Thus, let us not be surprised to hear the worst possible news: The President of the United States, along with our Vice President, have been attacked. After all, there are people right next door to us who believe these men are worse than Adoph Hitler.
Why should I write this? Because I am begging everybody to stop sowing hate. And I am thinking that Bonhoeffer was very right about Adolph Hitler, and that Bush's haters are very wrong about him.
May nothing evil befall any President who chooses to preside over the United States. I am praying that no horrors shall come upon President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or any world leader. But what good are prayers when there are so many fomenters out and about, telling us that one simple man is the world's biggest problem?
Peace and safety to President Bush. May there be an end to hate speech. May there be no assassinations anywhere, or at any time.
Peace, I beg.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Bush, Chavez, Diablo, Assassination, Hitler, Bonhoeffer, hate speech, krugman
10 comments:
Yes! Absolutely. Prayers for his safety. Assassinations kill us all.
Hi Bill. I have a feeling this is going to be a fun discussion.
"I am thinking that Bonhoeffer was very right about Adolph Hitler..."
When I read this, I wondered: is Bill implicitly calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez? After all, you point out that he is guilty of many of the things that Bush's opponents accuse him of, when calling for HIS assassination. It might follow that you think an assassination of the TRUE hater, the true menace, is called for.
But then you close the article with this:
"May there be no assassinations anywhere, or at any time."
So I have to ask: when you say "Bonhoeffer was very right about Adolph Hitler..." do you mean, not only that he was right about Hitler being a nasty dude, but that he was also right to attempt to assassinate him?
Here's another interesting statement on your part:
"The President invaded Iraq for this noble reason: freedom produces peace. He believes freedom and democracy are our best commodities to share with others; and that peace and democracy make great allies."
How do you know this? Are you privy to the President's innermost thoughts, his most candid utterances? You have often criticized Bush's critics for claiming to know his innermost thoughts and motivations, so I think it's fair to point out that you are now doing exactly the same thing, for your own reasons.
Also: YOU opposed the war in Iraq. Apparently Bush's supposed attempt at bringing "freedom" to Iraq didn't sit well with you at the time, and I doubt seriously that it does now.
Just for fun (though not very much fun, as these matters rarely bring me any joy at all), here's a predication that I've made before, in slightly altered form: Bush and Cheney will return from their trip safe and secure.
By the way, Vigilante, I'd like to reply, sort of, to your strange (and not a little mystical) statement: "Assassinations kill us all."
"Assassinations kill us all." This is plainly untrue. You and I are alive right now, despite many assassinations, some fairly recent.
I realize I am deliberately (and somewhat obnoxiously) taking you much too literally, but how else can one respond to such a vague assertion without extrapolating the original statement into a whirlwind of endless metaphysics?
I prefer statements that are at least a little more forceful and explicit in their brevity. For example:
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
--Sinclair Lewis
Now, that's one you can really have fun with. And it is reasonable to take it quite literally; it is not phrased in such a way as to be easily dealt with in any other manner.
--Luke
I seem to have typo'd. I meant to say "prediction" not "predication" which means "a declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument". Which is not what I meant at all.
I am intrigued by this homily, Bill: "freedom produces peace".
"Freedom produces peace". It sounds nice. Is it true? Seventy years ago, the Germans were free to vote for leaders other than the National Socialists, but they did not. Their freedom certainly did not produce peace--or freedom.
Perhaps this would be closer to the truth: "Freedom, combined with wisdom and foresight, produces peace." Ah, but that's too complex for a bumper sticker. Someone might get into an accident trying to figure it out.
Luke
Dear Luke,
You are mostly right!
Just a few things. Since I know what Hugo Chavez has said, namely, that Bush is Satan, I can only conclude from this that he believes Bush is the diablo. I do not know his heart or mind; hence, he might not mean any of this. Also, I know what Bush has said -- repeatedly -- about what the Bush Doctrine is (in part): it is to spread freedom and peace by spreading democracy. Bush has said that democracies do not commit terrorist attacks without warning. That all this is arguable is a truism; that Bush said this stuff is undeniable. But you are right: I do not know his mind, so he might not mean any of it. But I have NEVER heard him say that this is all about Oil, Vengeance, Power, Deception, or Hubris. Others have said that these are his motives without a single utterance by him that supports their ideas. Related to this, is the irrepressible fact that I have never heard George Bush utter anything approaching hate speech (though he did call a New York Times reporter a "major league A-hole"). Shock!
Lastly, I have your words in front of me, but since I do not know your heart, I cannot know whether you mean them. I can only choose to go ahead and trust that what I have read somehow reflects what you really think.
Yes, yes, of course, I do believe Bonhoeffer was not only right for thinking Hitler was evil, he was right for trying to stop that evil. But I am not arguing that assassination is a proper defense of all that is good. Bonhoeffer himself was in torment over whether a Christian should try to stop a bonafide tyrant. I am saying that assassination is one of the great evils, and that is why I pray there won't be any. And as you know, one happened just the other day.
So, you might be right about all this: I might be contradicting myself. And you are definitely correct that I do not know the President's heart. But, as I said, the President has constantly proclaimed what I said he did proclaim (and he just did it again in Jordan): He said the invasion of Iraq was to bring about regime change and establish democracy and freedom, because, or so he believes, those two gifts yield peace. It would be a matter of blind faith on my part to assert that he meant the opposite of the words I take on informed faith.
Also, I should point out that there are members of the Republican set who are also speaking -- now -- in terms that render the President subhuman. He is hanging out there: it is all his fault. Or so it goes, on and on.
Lastly, there is much to say about the Iraq War. But I can't tell you how much I appreciate that you have written this:
YOU opposed the war in Iraq.
Yes, I did. I am grateful you remember this. I can't explain my reasons for my gratitude at this time, but I am indeed glad that you have set the record straight, or, at least, straighter.
I may write an essay in response to what you have written here.
One more thing:
Don't be dissing my friend, Vigilante. You know what he meant: you're a freaking poet! But I also know what YOU mean. Perhaps that proves the poet in me. But, let me ask you: Is it NOT THE CASE that the Sinclair Lewis quote is ridiculous, ridiculously vague, ridiculously implicit? It is, after all, a mere bomb, a mere assertion. There is no argument presented therein. In that, it is identical to Vigilante's statement. And now that I think about it, I believe Vigilante's statement is actually more developed than Lewis'!
I mean this in good humor. Be well.
Anyhow, Luke, you are a true friend.
My best to you, and your herbalist pals.
Gnade
Bill--
I was trying to have a bit of fun with 'vigilante's statement. I did admit that I was being obnoxious by deliberately taking him literally. So I hope he does not now view me as a jerk. But I AM humorously crusading against cheap homilies. I've been told that sometimes when I am being playful, I come across as slightly brutal. Indeed, I have some truly sociopathic tendencies.
As for Lewis's prophecy, it is also overly simplistic (though I believe that he was correct, and I've been thinking of drafting an essay on the topic)). But it is easier to respond to coherently than "assassinations kill us all", in my opinion.
I have friends, even a few good friends, who, I think, want Bush to be assassinated, though I am not sure how sincere their desire is, though they do occasionally voice that apparent desire.
Perhaps this is because of a deep love for Dick Cheney on their part, and a desire for HIM to take the cardboard crown.
These same friends of mine laughed with glee when Chavez denounced Bush as the devil. I laughed, too, but I was laughing AT Chavez, not with him. He is a fool. An amusing fool, but a fool, and a charlatan.
When I was growing up in this country, I observed that authority appeared to be everywhere mocked, laughed at and otherwise undermined. As the years have passed, though, I have noted, with much disgust, that there is entirely too much respect for authority in this country. Calls for the assassination of Bush represent that respect for authority: these people believe so strongly in authority that they believe that it is necessary to frequently replace those who wield it, so that the authority and leadership they so desperately crave can guide them toward the light. Similarly, what on first glance appears to be the thriving of subversive free speech is actually deeply a reflexive response to near-total disenfranchisement, so much so that it now has little power. The mockery of rulers comes generally from a desire to be ruled--by someone the mocker finds preferable.
You see, part of the reason that I would rarely, if ever, call for anyone's assassination, is because I have no respect for authority at all.
Luke
People who believe this anology lack merit; intellectually or morally. Worse, they do not know what evil is. People predisposed or inclined to allow their minds to wander into a a dark forest in this manner may want to consider reading Michael Ignatieff's "Lesser Evil." Indeed, they may want to reread and rethink what a liberal democracy is and how it functions when faced with certain violent stresses like terrorism. To my mind, the assault upon Bush -whether you agree with him or not - does indeed point to a deeper malaise. Specifically, that we have lost all our intellectual bearings. Common sense and inherent trust in our Institutions have eroded. I too, as a Canadian, find it unconscionable that a fellow American would not defend one of their own. A clear message should be sent to the Venezuelan people. Alas and by extension, the public relations nightmare that faces the United States of America is serious enough to make me wonder if it is damaged beyond repair. I agree that it is character assassination at its worse directed at Bush - and I'm not a fan of his. I feel detaining people like he did went beyond what a democracy should be. But the fight on terrorism is a special fight and we are still feeling our way through this. Therein lies the dilemma and this is why I chose to not exaggerate any erroneous decisions. There's an email going around about how the Republicans started every American war. Sometimes I wish the historical indiscretions posited by baboons posing as intellectuals would be a crime.
"As for the Germans and the Nazis, the Nazis actually lost seats to the Social Democrats in the 1932 elections. They were never in the majority in the Reichstag. They were barely able to coelesce with a couple of smaller parties of disparate ideologies and were able to form a government with Hitler as Chancellor. Then they staged the Reichstag fire and Hitler convinced a senile President Hindenburg to declare a state of emergency. The rest is history as they say."
That's true. Since I just finished a 1200-page biography of Hitler, I should have noted that. Still, I think my point still stands, essentially: the Germans could have voted overwhelmingly against the National Socialists, thus preventing them from taking a foothold. The National Socialists had at least as much support in their country as OUR past few administrations, all of whom won election by winning the vote of less than a quarter of the eligable population.
This is what I think: we all have an awe-inspiring amount of liberty, but none of us use it adequately. Every day, my own conscience commands me to do things that would get me thrown in jail for subversion and disturbing the peace; and acts of kindness that I am too cowardly to perform, for fear of making myself tender and vulnerable. If all of us used one thousandth of the freedom we have in gentle and creative ways, no tyrant would ever gain a serious foothold. Really, the whole globe is a democracy. Whenever a tyrant grabs power in any manner, he has been permitted to do so by a sleeping citizenry. Every dictator reigning in the world today could have been overthrown by poetry, music and dancing years ago, but we appear to be evolving (are we?) too slowly for that.
Luke
Thanks to Bill for taking my back against Luke's good natured attack.
What I meant in my too-hastily cobbled comment was the obvious fact that assassinations, in our political system, deal all of us a mortal blow. I say that having lived through the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK as well as the attempts against Ronald Reagan and George Wallace.
When these things happen, our political system is dealt a toxic blow that is always potentially fatal.
Assassin's incarceration on earth should always be understood as permanent. There should be a special place in hell for those who are responsible for such acts.
I appreciate your sentiment that hating is acidic and that assassination is wrong. I note, though, that it only seems to be left-wingers who get assassinated in this country (correct me if I'm wrong--and I don't want to even the score). I've never feared for Bush's life because he's not liberal and he seems to be safely enveloped in not only our system of federal and military protections, but the best private protections anyone could buy--and always will be able to afford the latter (although I hear other Presidents won't get that federal protection in the future? Maybe Congress will restore that.) I sincerely pray for the safety of all our country's politicians and people, and for the elimination of hate-invoking rhetoric. I'll check myself, there. I very much appreciate your peaceful tone, thank you.
Dear Urbanpink,
Thanks for the kind visit.
I am not completely sure about your claim about victims of assassination. You might be right globally, but I am not sure about the U.S.
Presidents Lincoln and McKinley: both assassinated, both Republicans. Ronald Reagan, Republican -- shot; Gerald Ford, Republican -- shot at.
John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy - Democrats. Their assassins - Lee Harvey Oswald, an apparent Marxist, former defector to the USSR, and Castro enthusiast; Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian sympathizer. Neither of these killers would fall into the right-wing nut job category, I suspect.
No doubt there are left-wingers assassinated in this world, but I would argue that neither Kennedy was particularly left-wing.
And I don't think MLK was that left of center either. And George Wallace, a victim of an assassin's failed attempt, was also not much of a leftist, or so I believe.
There were two assassinations in the past ten days. In England, Alexander Litvinenko was (allegedly) poisoned; while, in Lebanon, Pierre Gemayel was shot. I do not know where either of these men stood on the political spectrum. I simply know that they stood on the earth; and that it is a sad thing that we live on such a planet where these sorts of sorrows are possible.
Blessings to you, always.
Gnade
Post a Comment