Why George W. Bush Frightens Me
John M.
Leone
INTRODUCTION
I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. At 26 years old, I
considered myself a political “conservative.” I had begun to follow and
study national politics around 1998. The more I read and studied, the
further I drifted away from my previous “liberal” beliefs. I had begun
to look at Democrats with revulsion and thought to myself, “How could any sane
and moral person who is paying attention vote for a Democrat?” I had
truly bought into the charade that there was a legitimate difference between
the two major political parties in America.
I was dead wrong.
Over the last few years since George W. Bush has taken
office, I have continued my drift to the right, which began around 1998, and
become more conservative in my political and religious thinking. The
more years that go by, the less tolerance I have for compromise on the
important issues of our time. As I have continued my study of American
history and politics, I have had to unwind my tangled brain from the spin and
lies I was taught and re-string it with truth and reality.
The realization that our great nation has undertaken a
massive defection from our constitutional underpinnings was one that I did not
welcome easily. I didn’t want to listen to the arguments from the
third-party wackos about how we had slid into socialism years ago and that the
only way out was to abandon the two-party system wholesale. I was
intellectually dishonest and did my best to shield myself from arguments
wielded by traditional conservatives, or “paleo-conservatives.”
From listening to and reading Rush Limbaugh and Sean
Hannity, I had all the party-line arguments against “liberalism” down
pat. But I just didn’t know what to say to the paleo-conservatives in
response to their arguments against neo-conservatism. I thought many of
their criticisms were entirely legitimate, but figured that these guys were
living on the fringes of American politics and that I could safely ignore
their wailings about a “tyrannical” government and the continuing
“restrictions” of our freedoms.
One night in early 2003, I was listening to Hannity’s radio
show. A man called in and began to rattle off facts, figures, and moral
positions that clearly identified him as a “conservative.” Judging by
what the man was saying, I guessed that he would be well received by Hannity
and that the call would go well. Then the man began to say that there
was no real difference between the two political parties and that Bush, by his
actions, had proven that he was every bit as “liberal” as those who Hannity
regularly bashed on his show every day. Just as the man began to talk
about the “socialists” who run our government, Hannity shut him down by
yelling at him, then terminated the phone call while the man was in
mid-sentence. Hannity called the man a lunatic, or something similar,
and quickly went to another caller without addressing even one of the points
raised by the man who had been hung-up on.
I remember thinking to myself, “What in the world was that
caller thinking? Bush is a conservative.” But this radio incident
tickled my brain for weeks and months as I began to seriously doubt, by
observing his behavior, that Bush was a conservative. I wondered why
Hannity, who by his own admission prides himself on “intellectual honesty,”
would argue day and night with ultra-left wing extremists, but when a
right-winger calls the show with legitimate gripes about the Republican Party,
he is yelled at and hung-up on.
I finally realized what it was that Hannity felt so
threatened by during that phone call. The caller was exposing the
neo-conservatives for the frauds that they really are, and Hannity could not
and would not allow that to happen. Could you imagine conservatives
around our nation coming to their senses and realizing that they were being
represented by a bunch of warfare-welfare socialists? The only real
threat to the neo-conservative movement is traditional conservatives.
And these people must be silenced at any cost by men like Rush and
Hannity.
As the Bush presidency wore on, I became more and more
disenchanted with his actions. I began to realize that, although Bush
and all of his supporters said he was a “conservative,” this man qualified
more for the political title of “socialist.” I did my best to shed the
neo-conservative paradigm that had gripped my mind and tried to look at what
was really going on in American politics. I began to listen more and
more to the little-heard voices from that right-wing political “fringe” that
had scared me away before with all of their talk of a “constitutional
republic” and whatnot.
The more I listened to these voices, the more I realized
that this was my true political home.
BUSH, THE AGENT OF GOD?
If there were any doubts about the socialist tendencies of
Bush, these doubts ought to have been washed away in the floodtide of
political propaganda that was Bush’s acceptance speech at the Republican
National Convention. As I watched the speech on television, I was fully
prepared for a monstrous and unconstitutional gaggle of new big-government
spending programs, and Bush did not fail on this account. What I
wasn’t prepared for was that Bush would make the stupendous and incredible
claim that, as the Commander-in-Chief of our fine military forces, he sees
himself working as an agent for the Almighty Creator God of the
Universe.
The only thing more surprising than this claim was the fact
that a room full of “conservatives” (many of them professing evangelical
Christians) would stand up and bellow cheers at the President after his
remarks on the God-mission he claims to be on.
Bush began this tirade of insanity with the statements, “I
believe in the transformational power of liberty. The wisest use of
American strength is to advance freedom.” He went on to speak of this
mysterious “power of liberty” as if is an actual physical force in our midst
that cannot be controlled, but merely directed.
Somehow, the “advance of freedom” around the globe has
become the mission statement of America, with George W. Bush as the head
cheerleader. Forget all that nonsense the founders believed in about not
becoming involved in unnecessary wars and entangling alliances. We are
going to force-feed the “best” version of government to weaker nations around
the world, whether they want it or not, all in the name of “advancing
freedom.” This is not news to anyone paying attention.
But what is news to me is that this forcible exportation of
democracy is going to be done in the name of the Most High God.
Bush stated, “I believe that America is called to lead the
cause of freedom in a new century” (emphasis added). The question then
logically becomes, “Well, who is it that is calling us?” Are other
nations around the world begging America to bring war all over the globe in
the name of democracy? I believe the exact opposite is the case.
Well, if other nations aren’t calling America to a specific destiny, then who
is? In terrifying fashion, Bush elaborates on who exactly he
believes is calling America to “lead the cause of freedom.”
After omnisciently claiming that people in the Middle East
“plead in silence for their liberty,” our mind-reading President goes on
state, “I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable
form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things
because freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is the Almighty God’s
gift to every man and woman in this world.”
This statement is very profound in that it exposes the very
root of the foreign policy thinking of this President. In the years to
come, Bush has promised that America will be going to war around the globe to
“advance freedom” in the name of God. He is going to force this “gift”
from God on other nations at the point of the sword. If this kind of
insane rhetoric doesn’t terrify Americans everywhere, then maybe I am the only
one who has lost his mind. But I don’t believe this to be the
case.
Bush might as well have said, “In the future, we are going
to go to war against nations who present no threat to America, and we will do
this not only because it is for their own good, but primarily because God
wants us to.” Going into unnecessary wars with nations around the globe
is now seen in the beautiful and patriotic light of “advancing freedom” and
promoting liberation, instead of war being a last resort and only necessary
when our nation’s security is threatened.
And at such a dreaded end lies the logic of the shame-faced
neo-cons who found no WMDs in Iraq. With no evidence discovered to back
up the claims of the legitimate threat to American soil that the invasion was
founded upon, the neo-cons are trying their hardest to convince Americans that
we invaded to liberate the populace of Iraq. The American people would
never have supported the Iraq war solely to liberate the people of that
nation. The war had support because Americans were told that there were
massive inventories of WMDs in Iraq, and that these weapons were on the verge
of being given to terrorists to use against our people. Now that no WMDs
have been located, “advancing freedom” and liberation has become the rallying
cry of the war-mongering neo-conservatives who are eager to invade other
nations in the near future.
Bush elaborates further on the “called-out” nature he
believes America is embodying, “Like generations before us, we have a calling
from beyond the stars to stand for freedom” (emphasis added). I humbly
propose that this type of rhetoric would have shocked the consciences of the
founders of this great nation; that America’s destiny would involve
preemptively and without just cause, invading other nations around the world,
believing that God (or some other mysterious force that lives “beyond the
stars”) has called us to just this task.
A PLEA FOR SANITY
Mr. President, with all due respect, you may believe you
are “called” to such action, but I reject this form of worship at the altar of
the state. To elevate a nation to the status of an Agent of God is to
introduce a wicked form of state worship and idolatry. The state may be
given authority by God (Romans 13), but by abusing this authority and
elevating the state into a realm where only He can and must reside is the most
dangerous form of self-deception imaginable.
You may believe that America has been tasked by God to
accomplish goals that, coincidentally, are politically expedient for you and
your party, but I believe the Bible clearly speaks against such hubris and
blatant statism, and therefore I dismiss it wholesale. I thought that
God wanted people to preach the gospel of the Savior to all nations, not to
force a certain form of government on all nations.
I feel that I am blessed to live in this great nation and I
love America as much as the next man. I write this criticism not because
I wish for America to disintegrate, as so many on the left do, but because I
wish for a greater nation than we have today, and one that is in the tradition
of what our founders intended. I love the America that was founded on
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, not
the monstrosity that America has become under an abusive federal government
that is the sole arbiter of its own power, operating virtually
unchecked.
Mr. Bush, just because you are waving an American flag at
me does not make you any more patriotic than I, and it does not invalidate the
fact that you are promoting state worship, neo-colonialism, and a Crusade
through the mass export of endless warfare at what you believe is the behest
of God. I can’t imagine of anything more dangerous than a man, who is in
charge of the greatest fighting force ever assembled on planet earth,
believing that he is on a mission from God to invade other nations around the
globe.
Frankly, sir, you terrify me.
September 10, 2004
John Leone is editor of the Silverback
Standard and a staunch defender of biblical and constitutional government.
He may be reached for comment here.
