The President, The Senator, and the Poet

It is rare that something so trivial as a political campaign can define our ontological condition.  But that is what the present presidential campaign is doing.  We are beset on all sides by a fear of reality. 

The President, it is clear, is a liar not merely for personal gain; he lies as a condition of existence.  What is terrifying about him is that he clearly and truly believes the appalling things he says. 

“We are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East,” he said recently, when accepting his party’s nomination. “Our strategy is succeeding…today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaeda’s key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.”

He went on in this vein of gauzy unreality for some time.

To me, the President’s character is fundamentally a mystery. I do not believe anyone can actually believe the things he is saying. The barest familiarity with events indicates that Afghanistan has no government, that Pakistan is parceling out terrorist leaders one by one for favors, that the Saudi government is making raids and arrests as a matter of bare self-preservation, that Libya had been trying to get rid of its arsenal for many years, that Iraq is neither free nor possessed of anything resembling an army, and that however many of its leaders are in custody, al-Qaeda has made the leap, as Peter Bergen puts it, from bin Ladin to bin Ladinism.  The world is a far more dangerous place now than it was before the President took power, and he is the direct cause of much of this danger.

For various reasons—mainly, I believe, because they are emotionally crippled—many people feel a need to put a spin on these facts, as if they were in the personal employ of one or the other of the political parties.  Some of them will boldly assert that Iraq is a free and increasingly democratic nation; others will claim that the President and his advisers have from obscure, sinister motives deliberately alienated our nation from our traditional allies, and that this would not have happened under a different administration. 

Whether or not they actually believe their lies is a matter of no great concern to anyone.  Whether the President actually believes his are a matter of great importance to all.  I have spent the last four years trying to figure out whether or not he does, and if so, why; and I have finally come to the conclusion that he does believe every word he says, and that it doesn’t matter why someone can be so deluded.  What matters is that he does not meet reality in any meaningful sense.  He is an intellectual and moral shadow, engaged with the world at the level of a damaged child, unfit for anything save speculation and fantasy.  He would probably be best off reading light novels at a seaside retreat.

His opponent is no better, and probably worse. It is difficult to understand why the Senator doesn’t make the clear, simple and obvious case against the President:  He and his advisers have failed to defend the nation. They lied to the nation about the reasons they wanted to invade Iraq, and then against all professional advice waged the war in an unforgivable fashion, destroying that country’s every institution with no plans to replace them. This led finally to the abdication of large swaths of Iraq to fundamentalist terrorists; Abu Ghraib, the moral nadir of postwar American history; and the installation in power of a Ba’athist strongman. On their watch spies in the Department of Defense have given important secrets to Iran, an enemy nation, and revealed the identity of an intelligence officer for political reasons, among other crimes. Whether or not their intentions are evil, the effects of their actions are.  They have proved themselves unable and unfit to lead the nation in a time of war.

There are few conceivable reasons for the Senator not to make this case—he has made allegations as bold, simply not in anything like a coherent fashion—and none of them reflect well on him.  He is, possibly, unaware of how badly botched has been the execution of both the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. He possibly does not see them as having been botched.  Most probably, he does not think Americans are informed and intelligent enough to understand how badly botched they have been, and so relies on slogans fit for simpletons.  This is contemptible.

Ultimately, as it doesn’t matter why the President is able to appraise the situation in Iraq and think that he has set that miserable nation on the path to modernity and freedom, it doesn’t matter why the Senator has been unable to make the case any reasonably sentient person would make if placed in his position. What his refusal amounts to is a refusal to engage the realities of the President’s administration. If his policies would be better than the President’s, his moral character and his leadership are just as bad.  He thinks that he can win victory by obfuscating and turning the attention of Americans to their diminished economic status. Ultimately, the only appeal he is capable of making is an appeal to self-interest.  He is a wretched coward, unable to speak the truth.

I do not wish to succumb to the easy cynicism of saying that all politicians are alike in their evasions and misrepresentations. While I feel little but scorn for the Senator, I feel that the reelection of the President would be catastrophic. But their differences are less important in the broader sense than their similarities, which are not incidental but necessary. 

Witness a recent, surreal sequence. Documents purporting to prove what is already common knowledge—that the President, when a young man, used family influence to avoid dangerous military service—were given to a broadcast outlet. Literally within hours, fools fancying themselves experts in typography were writing on websites, claiming the documents were forged; fools with an interest in proving the documents genuine were equally sudden experts in this arcane specialty.

This has, of course, nothing to do with the elusive leaders of al Qaeda, North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, the unbelievably hubristic destruction of Najaf and Karbala, the rape of children in Abu Ghraib prison, or much of anything else. But this is where the energies of the press and the committed partisans were placed, where the time of the consultants and strategists was spent, and for days it dominated the public presentation of the two candidates.  Are they the cause of this asinine stretch of time? Of course not; they are the perfectly unreal products of the democratic culture that created them, one which has mistaken ease of access for sophistication, the ability to value what is not said more than what is for wisdom, and the recitation of talking points for commitment.  When anyone fresh out of college can strike the pose of the world-weary pundit, when fools with broadband connections can read them and then fill in their comments fields with freshly contrived analysis of polls, press spin and other professional matters, and when panicked professionals then mistake this mass sewer of callowness for the presence of the future, it is inevitable that there will be no conversation, no confrontation of unpleasant facts, nothing meaningful beyond the analysis of analysis.  Politics finally attains to the status of literary criticism.

Whitman asked poets who would write of America,

Can you hold your hand against all seductions, follies,
    whirls, fierce contentions? are you
    really of the whole People?
Are you not of some coterie? some school or mere religion?
Are you done with reviews and criticism of life? animating
    now to life itself?
Have you vivified yourself from the maternity of these States?
Have you too the old ever-fresh forbearance and
    impartiality?
Do you hold the like love for those hardening to maturity?
    for the last-born? little and big? and for the errant?

What is this you bring my America?

At risk of naiveté, our age’s most serious vice, I would that these questions were asked of our candidates at the next debate a thousand times rather than hear one question regarding Vietnam.  I say this not because I draw an equivalence between the President’s refusal to face death and the Senator’s willingness to do so, or think it irrelevant, but because I hope that what we ask of our poets, we can ask of our leaders. What Whitman wanted of anyone who would dare attempt to portray our nation was for them to search themselves and measure themselves against the world as they found it; if our candidates refuse to do so, the least we should expect is that we as citizens do this ourselves.

Comments

[Eric B for President]

Thank you, O Wise Blogging One, for protecting us from those "fresh out of college [striking] the pose of the world-weary pundit." How old are you, exactly? I ask only because your language is so ambitious, and sophomoric --

"The President, it is clear, is a liar not merely for personal gain; he lies as a condition of existence. What is terrifying about him is that he clearly and truly believes the appalling things he says."

In a few years you'll have realized these candidates are no more mediocre or monstrous than most. And that candidates who ask themselves Whitman's questions are 1) rare, and 2) Not always better leaders, if likely better, or at least more thoughtful (bright young people such as yourself tend to conflate these terms) men.

[Tim Marchman]

I thought the irony of my denunciation of world-weary pundits was so obvious it didn't need to be pointed out. But in my own defense I usually stick to writing about fiction, baseball and music. Also, I did not say that these candidates are more mediocre or monstrous than most. They are not. The problem with them is that the thin string that has generally tied politicians to objective reality has been completely severed. Finally, the idea that intelligence or moral character or self-doubt are not desirable traits in a president is just absurd. People with a partisan bias towards George Bush like to tell themselves this is so; that does not actually make it so.

[Harry Siegel, Editor-In-Chief]

I'd add to Tim's comments that the increased allowances over the past 20 years for discussing the machinery of politicking -- "that's not the message we're trying to get out" instead of articulating that message -- has created a politics that not only allow for, but necessitate, the disingenuous and dishonest.

[ts_brock]

This is brilliant--a potent dose of ugly reality, just what Americans, aided and abetted by the media, evade at every opportunity.

I am not an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Kerry, but I thoroughly oppose Mr. Bush, whose policies can be credited with increasing global terrorism and nuclear proliferation, not to mention an exponential increase in seething anti-American hatred all over the planet (no, not only in France and Arab lands). For now, the thinking people of the world are united in their detestation of George W. Bush. What will they say if this lame excuse for a leader is actually elected?

At this pivotal moment in history, U.S. citizens find themselves faced with a situation not unlike that of the French in 2002: "Chirac or Le Pen?" (Well, except that Le Pen wasn't actually the incumbent at the time...) The French people swallowed their disgust-mingled pride and voted for Chirac (about 98% of them, in fact) in order to prevent a much greater evil--the naming of a fanatic as their head of state.

This is the true meaning behind the widespread support of that all-compelling candidate, "Anyone But Bush in 2004". Just as the Spanish finally told Mr. Aznar how far he was from representing their own interests, and how his sham defense of democracy in Iraq undermined the Spanish people's own claim to democracy (including the due process implied by the very concept of democracy), it is time for the people of the United States to reject the reigning fanatical regime, which, ironically enough, is itself no more and no less than the mirror image of bin Laden's own. Both Bush and bin Laden claim to be fulfilling the dictates of God. Both, under what they claim to be "divine guidance", have killed thousands of innocent people. It is high time for this murderous madness to come to an end.

[Joshua Bregman]

My God! How could anyone look into the mirror, recite those words, and not turn their gaze away! Reality is rightly an object of fear. It is terrible.

If Bush were capable of grasping reality, facing what he has done, he would watch his sanity float away on gossamer wings of agony never to return. Either that or stab his eyes out and wander the earth a beggar for the rest of his days. I agree we should get him thither to the nearest seaside, but you can hardly blame the man for trying to avoid a rubber room.

Perhaps he could have saved himself immediately after 9/11 by resigning with a frank admission that he was in way over his head. That would have at least been honorable. Now it is entirely too late. The only way through for him is to further embellish his illusions until retirement at which time he can go back to his life of leisure.

The country, though, may yet be capable of shaking off its self-serving delusions, although I'd give it long odds. Kerry did stand up in public and do something truthful and brave once. Of course that was thirty years ago and he wasn't running for office at the time.

[Eric B Never Scared]

I'm voting for the Senator, Mr. Marchman. The comments above this one clearly illustrate the hysteria in your article. Do you have any idea how long people have been decrying the severance of politics from reality? And, as per the hysterical (in both senses of the word) comments above, the end of Western Civilization? Perhaps writing about baseball and fiction most of the time explains your lack of perspective, but it hardly excuses it. The President, you tell me above, is not more mediocre or monstrous than most candidates, but you call him a coward, a wretched man and a liar not of necessity but as a term of his existence. Finally, you attribute to me the idea that " the idea that intelligence or moral character or self-doubt are not desirable traits in a president." This claim idea is, obviously, stupid. But so is your claim that I've made it. What candidates, sir, have lived up to the standard Whitman offers? And what presidents? Whatever your answer, I'm sure it's rather brief.

Please consider that in a brief comment you claim to know my mind twice (against intelligence in a president, and who I wil vote for in the coming election), and are wrong both times. It's not so easy to write about strangers. Why not castigate the President for what's he's done, much of which I think we agree is quite troubling, instead of for being a liar, and the nature of those lies. I imagine you were appalled by the psycho-babble that surrounding the Lewinsky affair and the Clinton presidency more generally; don't engage in such shoddy and partisan journalism now. I've now looked at some of your baseball writing, which is stat and performance based, free of the "he didn't want it enough" cliches that pollute the genere. Your political writing could use more of that discipline.

[J.E. D'Ulisse]

I found the piece to be exceptionally written, insightful and quite compelling. I wish I could say I found it entertaining, but that part of my brain does not seem to have the same energy it once did.

I remember the rage I saw in NYC in the days after September 11th, I remember the night of candles, I remember slogans, I remember hate, I remember almost getting into fights for "defending terrorists" and I remember uncomfortable silences when I would speak my mind. That was is oh so liberal NYC, where I remember people would once express the strangest, near psychotic opinions without any fear at all. I can not imagine what it was like outside of there.

I am afraid that what you are writing about is what Americans want and I don't mean that in some condescending way. I really am afraid.

Once again, it was quite a good read.

[J. Pedlick]

So what is your proposal to deal with the islamists? For the past 30 or so years, under many administrations and leaders, nothing was done to address the differences between the 10th century world the islamists want to live in and the 21st century that time & innovation impose on every citizen of the world. Mr. Bush, has drawn a line in the sand and is saying no more business as usual for the islamists whose only goal is to drag the whole world back to a 10th century islamic totalitarian world. The struggle between the old and new world is extremely complex and as such requires a leader who has the guts and convictions to shake the ever deteriorating world situation up just to get some clarity as to what actions to take. It is abundantly clear that the lackadaisical Laissez faire approach we have embraced for the last 30 years has only lead to killing and more killing for god!
From my background and years of experience, when faced with very a complex problem the best approach was to just start! Start with a shot gun approach. Try many seemingly contradicting things all at once and then rationalize the difference in results, revealing the true directions to take in solving the problem. We used to say, Now we are inventing! Right, Wrong or, Indifferent this Leader Bush, is inventing. Something we haven't seen in the past 30 years.
As for the notion that terror has escalated since the line in the sand had been drawn is correct. But not for the reason proposed. It has escalated because the islamists who have been creating a world class organization to bring islamic states to every corner of the globe is now threatened for the first time in 30 years.
Think of the islamic organization as a hornet's nest that has been growing inside of a massive tree trunk undisturbed for years. Occasionally a new queen is born and sets out to establish a new colony in another area. Along their way the new queen and workers bite people in their way but nothing is done about the new colony that is developing. But the nest and nests keeps getting bigger. Along comes the woodsmen with his axe and cuts down the tree. Fearing for their lives and the nest the hornets displace in all directions biting and raising havoc with anyone in their path. Well, Mr. Bush is the woodsman and his inventing is the axe!!!

[Arson Bagdazarov]

Mr. Pedlick,

First, a correction. There were no tenth century totalitarians. Totalitarianism is an exclusively modern political system, acheivable only in a mass society with an adavnced technological infrastructure. The ideologies and ambitions of many contemporary Islamists are indeed totalitarian, based on millenial creeds of monism and violent maximalism. However, to describe thousand-year-old Muslim cultures as totalitarian is to conflate a latent philisophy with the society built in its image.

Islamism is, among other things, the politicization of Islam, whereby it becomes chiefly an ideology with religion as its central conceit. Islamism, starting with the Muslim Brotherhood and including its descendents in Al Qaeda and other organizations, is itself a modern phenomenon, directly informed by twentieth century, European totalitarian ideologies. A step towards defeating Islamism will be won when the world public sees past its exoticism to the familiar enemies that midwifed it.

President Bush has confronted this bane and taken an axe to the bee's nest. As you say, the president served us well by answering the call to action and positioning this battle as the pivot of our time. The danger now is that the president's wise historical judgment has been undermined by his egregious failure as a political leader and commander in chief. It is possible that his very wisdom has allowed his dangerous incompetence to go unanswered for, as those who concur with the need for the axe have perversely seen his incompetence as virtuous steadfastness.

Now that the axe has been raised we need a leader who can be trusted to wield it.