Bush's Leviathan

This is not mine, it was written by a friend who was inspired by reading Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. I find it interesting...

At a Republican Debate in Iowa on December 13, 1999, George W. Bush was asked, "Who is your favorite Political Philosopher?" He answered "Christ." While no surprise to Bush-haters, it turns out he lied. For purposes of this contention we will ignore the innumerable religious scholars, clergymen and lay people who have challenged this assertion. And, we will ignore the fact that Jesus was far from a political philosopher – his Kingdom was centered in neither in Crawford nor Washington, but in the hereafter. I am not going to look at whom Bush does not follow, but instead whom he, in fact, does.

To answer such questions we need to find a philosopher who would find the President's actions acceptable. Why would the Bush Administration attempt to destroy the careers and lives of people who have challenged their policies? Why would the Bush Administration refuse to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission? Why would the Bush Administration feel it did not have to answer questions that challenged the validity of the Iraq War? And, finally why would the Bush Administration spend Billions of Dollars fighting terrorism in Iraq when the perpetrators of 9/11 are in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? Unfortunately for the American People, careful review of these policies and actions show us that they are not some ragtag extemporaneous reactions to the issues of the day. Such a thing would be understandable if not forgivable.

These issues and actions seem perfectly clear if we remember our Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes had lived through the destruct and the destitution of the English Civil Wars (1642-1651). His Leviathan was a powerful state with unlimited power – the kind that might be able to halt a rebellion. Separations of Powers and questioning of the sovereign were absent and unthinkable. The sovereign, whether elected or monarchial, was all-powerful and unquestionable. His powers were absolute. The sovereign was neither questioned nor challenged since he had the health of the commonwealth in mind. If Hobbes were alive today he would see the President and his administration as the ultimate sovereign of the American Commonwealth – while congress would be a minor annoyance to merely placate the masses.

The Administration has shown the ability to strike back against those who merely use their Right of Free Speech. They put pressure on ABC to fire Bill Maher. (And Rumsfeld may have threatened his life.) Members of the Administration leaked the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, immediately after her husband, Joseph Wilson, exposed the Niger-uranium connection as a fraud. How could a democratically elected officer believe he had such powers that were so obvious contrary to the Constitution? Hobbes states in Chapter 18, "Because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a sovereign, he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do." Whether a major part did consent is still a question, yet, it is obvious "48 percent of the people voted for us and the Supreme Court confirmed it, so shut-up."

The Administration has a propensity for secrecy. The people do not get to see the transparency they would want. Nor, do they see the translucency found in other administrations. The Administration was the single biggest obstacle to the 9/11 Commission, refusing to tell what it knew of the attacks. The Administration made no bones about the fact that it could make an Energy Policy that would effect us until 2025, without telling anybody how it was determined in closed door meetings, with the shades pulled. All of this seems alien to those of us raised in a democracy with open decision-making, until you consider Hobbes again. In Chapter 17 he writes, "He that carryeth this person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides, his subject." It is as if the Bush and his staff say, "We make the decisions here and you don't have to know how or why."

How could the Administration think it could get away with inventing and lying about Iraq for the purposes of going to war? The Administration has continually challenged those who argued then or now that the war is wrong. These people have been called the lovers of Saddam or "revisionist historians." In what has been seen as hubris in the Administration, it has refused to open to public debate issues surrounding war and peace. People outside the administration have seen this as undemocratic and totally illogical. Yet if we look at Hobbes again it is completely logical. In Chapter 18 of Leviathan he says, it "is annexed to the sovereignty the right of making war and peace with other nations and Commonwealths; that is to say, of judging when it is for the public good, and how great forces are to be assembled, armed, and paid for that end, and to levy money upon the subjects to defray the expenses thereof."

Why have we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives, American and Iraqi, fighting terrorism in Iraq while those who committed the heinous actions of 9/11 are still in Afghanistan? We have been bombarded with orange alerts, unspecified "specific information," and instructions to purchase duct tape. Yet, we do not seem to be any closer to catching Osama bin Laden. We are told that we are safer, yet we still have to be afraid. The Administration appears to be playing both sides of the fence on this issue.

At first it seems odd that the President of the United States would tell us to continue to live in fear. But then – ah-ha. Hobbes is probably most famous for his reasoning behind the development and maintenance of the commonwealth. In Chapter 13 he declares, "The passions that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them." The Administration has attempted to maintain its sovereignty over the people by instilling this most basic fear. Therefore, it can peacefully spy on us, redistribute wealth to the rich and limit the populace's ability to unionize or even boycott products and industries. They tell us, "Allow us to give tax cuts to the rich or you're all gonna die!"

The Administration excuses itself in these actions with its own belief in sovereignty. George Bush has repeated declared that the government rest not in the people, nor in other parts of government, but in the office of the President. After the 2000 debacle – where the Lady of the Lake in the Supreme Court through him Excalibur – Bush called elections, "the peaceful transfer of authority." In 2005, he remodeled it "the peaceful transfer of power." To Bush power solely rests in his own office. He has shown disdain for Congress, ignoring and obstructing its investigation in all manner of things – 9/11, energy policy, etc. But, he has saved his greatest venom for the Courts, "activist judges." To Bush, Congress, the Courts and the people are meaningless. In Hobbesian style he declares, "je suis l'etat!" (but probably says, "gee, swiss le tate!")