Judging the Bush Years: Bush the Manichaean

George W. Bush gave his farewell address to the nation last night and displayed in full force what is his least endearing quality: his Manichaean view of the world.

The Manichaens wrestled with the fact of evil in the world and posited belief in two Gods, one the Lord of Light and the other the Lord of Darkness, contending for supremacy in the world. The orthodox doctrine explaining evil comes to us from St. Augustine who taught that evil is not created, it is an absence. Cowardice is the absence of courage. Death is the absence of life. Ultimately, evil is actually boring because it only and always points to the good, to the Lord of Light.

Advertisement

In Bush’s case, the world is divided into good or evil and he is the liege lord of goodness. Mind you, no one doubts that Al-Qaeda and Hamas and other radical terrorist organizations are evil. No one doubts that Saddam Hussein was evil. But, no one with a whiff of intellectual seriousness doubts that even a just war entails evil and so heads of state are well advised to be wary in the exercise of their power lest they drift towards committing evil despite having the best of intentions.

"As we address these challenges – and others we cannot foresee tonight – America must maintain our moral clarity," the President said. "I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere. Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right." But, this is not a statement of moral clarity. It is a statement of moral absolutism, a failure to perceive that the effort to free the Iraqi people from oppression itself entailed grave evil. Moral clarity is required not only to assess the intrinsic value of different types of regime, where there is little doubt of our moral superiority. It is needed to assess the actions of our morally superior regime, to recognize that just as there is honor among thieves there is wrong-doing by the virtuous.

If you want a statement of moral clarity, this from Winston Churchill is closer to the mark. "Statesmen are not called upon only to settle the easy questions. These often settle themselves. It is where the balance quivers, and the proportions are veiled in mist, that the opportunity for world-saving decisions presents itself." This was how Churchill characterized the failure of the British government to form an alliance with Soviet Russia, despite the horrendous character of its regime, in 1939, after the rape of Austria, the catastrophe of Munich (proof that diplomacy on behalf of peace can also entail more evil than the prosecution of war), the devouring of the rest of non-Sudetan Czechoslovakia, and the gathering storm headed towards Poland and the world. In the event, America and Britain did eventually ally themselves with the second greatest monster of the century, Stalin, to defeat the greatest monster, Hitler. (Or # 2 and # 3 if you consider Mao the worst tyrant of that miserably deadly century.)

The difference in perspective between Churchill and Bush is not in the evil character of the regimes they discerned as enemies. I do not doubt that Hitler would find Osama bin Laden a kindred spirit. But, recalling Augustine, evil is an absence, and the evil from which Bush suffers, and the point of difference between him and Churchill, is learning. Churchill, a restless intellect who wrestled with great ideas in life and on the pages of his many books, sought truth. Bush sought certainty and the comforts it affords. His absence of learning has cost the nation dear. He misunderstands why some of us are uncomfortable when he speaks of good and evil. Our problem is not with the concepts. Our problem is with the man who gives voice to the concepts. He still appears like a boy pretending to be a man.

Last night was the last time Bush addressed the nation from the White House. The first time, as he recalled last night, was on the evening of September 11, 2001. That night, a friend’s five year old was watching the television and turned to her mother and asked, "Why did they give him such a big desk?" Out of the mouths of babes. Bush was, finally, a man too small for the great office entrusted to him.

 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
9 years 9 months ago
I think the term Manichaeanism is misused with regards the President. Manichees do not have a copyright on the term ''evil.'' Certainly Augustine would have no qualms referring to good and evil in a similar manner as the president. The heresy located evil as a part of creation, a substance in itself, as opposed to the Catholic (and Neo Platonic) understanding of evil as a privation. We see evil as an act to be reformed, not a thing to be destroyed(or ignored). One might see Bush's penchant for ''evil doers'' as a mark of his Augustianism. Indeed, his desire to liberate and reform the middle east also smacks of the great saint. It is manifestly hopeful and reflcts a belief in the ultimate goodness of all creation.... Bush is not a Manichaean, though he may have been overconfident and unrealistic in his attempt to change ingrained political and social custom through force alone. Augustine made a similiar error in judgement with Donatists. As for Churchill, a great man....who made vast number of consequential political and military mistakes that cost many tens of thousands of lives.... Galipoli, invasion of Italy. Indeed, perhaps his most brilliant strategic decision was to order the intentional bombing of civilian targets in Berlin so as to goad the Luftwaffe to retaliate against civilian targets in Britain, and thus ease the pressure on RAF airfields. It wasn't that Churchill was more learned, he simply regarded flesh as cheap. He didn't make war peronal, so was unmoved by massive death tolls on either side. He was relentless and cut throat in his pursuit of the final victory, and we praise him for it. Churchill did not seek truth, he sought victory. His deserved accolades drown out the cries of those doomed seamen at Mers-el-Kébir.
9 years 9 months ago
I think Michael Sean Winters watches too much MSNBC.

Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018