A Tale of Two Fantasies

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Those who would compare President Bush to Osama Bin Laden do the former an injustice. Despite the fact that both men have brought enmity and hatred to the world, a president of the United States is chosen in free elections by millions of voters, in a democratic system that, despite its imperfections, far surpasses other, non-democratic methods of choosing leaders. Bin Laden is an unelected, self-appointed spiritual leader of a group of Islamic extremists and dissidents. And yet – surprisingly – the two men seem to have one thing in common: they are both fantasists.

In his recent NYT article, Without a Doubt, Ron Suskind touched a nerve of what's at stake in the coming election:

It is "a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion."

Suskind was not just talking about Al Qaeda and extremist Islam; he was also talking about George W. Bush and current American foreign and domestic policy. The article goes into considerable detail, touching on the personal experiences of people who know Bush well or have been close to the seat of power in this or previous administrations. It is a disturbing portrait of a man driven by an implicit belief in magic, mysticism and messages from God.

Referring to Suskind's article, another Internet contributor put it this way:

Throughout history, pretty much any time a group ends up with complete political power without any group to challenge them intellectually, people go nuts. They get drunk with their own power, believing the delusions that it's a "new world," that they create "new reality" out of sheer will, and that the rest of the world will be bystanders to their manifest destiny.


Blah blah blah. Heard it before.

Who else went down this road?

Commodus of Rome; more than a couple Popes; heads of the Holy Roman Empire; Charles IX of France; Shaka Zulu; the Nazi party; Mao; Pol Pot, the list unfortunately goes on. (Source)

Another revealing piece in the Bush fantasy puzzle, for example, comes from an article entitled Bush's Messiah Complex in The Progressive:

A picture emerges from the President's public statements--and even from such adulatory accounts as Bob Woodward's Bush at War and David Frum's The Right Man--of a President on a divine mission. Call it messianic militarism.

An even more disturbing view of Bush can be found in Culture, Religion, Apocalypse, and Middle East Foreign Policy by Chip Berlet & Nikhil Aziz:

It’s hard to believe, but the Bush administration’s foreign policy and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are influenced by the writings of a cave-dwelling hermit who had apocalyptic visions some 2000 years ago.

These snapshots portray an American president who seems to believe he is on a messianic mission, who elevates faith to the status of a magic panacea and dismisses reason and empiricism as obstacles to action, obstacles in the path of divine will. Faced with a world of complexities in which black and white are not realistic guides to analysis and policy, George W. Bush seems to see "the evil that men do" but fails to grasp the fact that he has created his own fantasy world of foreign policy to deal with the problem – a world that may be a greater threat to friends than to foes.

In a dramatic turn of election events, television viewers yesterday witnessed another fantasist, Osama Bin Laden, the outcast Saudi merchant who has taken it upon himself to lead an extremist Islamic crusade against the West in general and America, in particular. While Bush is busy recreating his own fantasy world, Bin Laden and his not-so-merry band of Al Qaeda extremists draw on a fantasy tradition that goes back thousands of years.

In Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology by Lee Harris (writing at Tech Central), the author described the nature of what he calls "fantasy ideology":

To an outside observer, the fantasist is clearly attempting to compensate by means of his fantasy for the shortcomings of his own present reality — and thus it is tempting to think of the fantasist as a kind of Don Quixote impotently tilting at windmills. But this is an illusion. Make no mistake about it: The fantasist often exercises great and terrible power precisely by virtue of his fantasy.

Harris goes on to show that the real danger of a fantasist is when there is "an entire group – a sect, a people or even a nation" caught up in such a fantasy world. It is precisely the lack of political realism on the part of such groups that feeds the fantasy – and the chief fantasist.

In reviewing these fantasy ideologies, especially those associated with Nazism and Italian fascism, there is always the temptation for an outside observer to regard their promulgation as the cynical manipulation by a power-hungry leader of his gullible followers. This is a serious error, for the leader himself must be as much steeped in the fantasy as his followers: He can only make others believe because he believes so intensely himself.

Now we have the spectacle of Bin Laden apparently rising from the dead, cautioning the American public that it does not matter who they choose for president, unless America changes its foreign policy in the Middle East. His words and ideas comprise yet another fantasy: his futile belief that Americans will give in to the blackmail of terror and violence. The fantasist does not seem to comprehend that such rhetoric only inspires people to fight for what they perceive to be right – just as the Bin Ladens of the world seem to be inspired to fight for what they perceive to be right.

The problem for the American presidential election is not that Bin Laden is offering unsolicited advice to the electorate. Rational people do not debate democracy with people who want to overthrow democracy by force. The problem is that the electorate may not fully appreciate the inherent dangers of people who build fantasy worlds and then try to act them out in the real one. Bin Laden acted out his ultimate fantasy by attacking America successfully on 9/11. Although Bush at first responded realistically and, in so doing, garnered the solidarity of virtually the entire world, his fantasy vision soon got the best of him. He began to talk incoherently of an "axis of evil", identifying countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, a fantasy ideology that culminated in the invasion of Iraq – the ultimate Bush fantasy.

Fantasy worlds proceed from a rejection of scientific thinking, from a belief in mystical "feelings", from "gut feelings" and religious "certainty". As Kerry rightly pointed out during one of the debates, "you can be certain but you can also be wrong."

Let there be no doubt that America is the attacked, not the attacker in this issue. For all his lack of understanding of world complexities, Bush is not the moral equivalent of Bin Laden. But, in trying to construct a fantasy world of his own, as a fantasist himself, Bush fails to understand the basic threat posed by other fantasists. He refuses to see the struggle against terrorism as an international, criminal issue, driven by poverty, injustice and despair on the part of millions of people on earth. Instead, he sees it as a crusade, a battle of good and evil, a showdown between "them" and "us".

Unfortunately, that is also how Bin Laden sees it.

As we near election eve, we are left with the images of two fantasists, each with his own vision of what the world should be like, each with his own belief in 14th century values, each with his own potential to ignite the world and destroy civilization, each with his own inerrant brand of mysticism – a sad, sombre tale of two fantasies.

Is 36 Your Lucky Number?

Is Amendment 36 a Colorado Cassandra at the gates or a godsend for democracy?

The "winner-takes-all" principle uniquely expresses many aspects of US society. We see it in the economy, in health-care issues, in education and in the democratic process as a whole. This latter process has recently come under fire by legislators in Colorado.

Amendment 36 is a proposal to change the way the Electoral College divides its votes in that state. Two other states have similar laws, Nebraska and Maine. In these states, candiates who win the popular vote receive two electoral votes, while one vote goes to each congressional district in which a candidate receives a majority. However, neither has ever done what Colorado proposes doing – i.e. split the electoral votes.

This issue raises core democratic principles. Should voters demand that their votes count – in a one-man, one-vote system – or should they be content to allow others to choose the person who will represent them as president? Democratic legislators in Colorado are currently fighting for the former principle.

If passed by Colorado voters on November 2, the state's nine electoral votes will be allocated to each presidential candidate in the 2004 election, proportionately, based on the popular vote. Here is the text of Amendment 36.

In an article entitled Scrap Electoral College, Says New York Times. The New York Times makes a strong case in favor of Electoral-College reform.

The electoral college "thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis," the paper said in an editorial.

"The main problem with the electoral college is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote," the editorial said.
"The majority does not rule, and every vote is not equal -- those are reasons enough to scrap the system," the Times said.

Bruce Bartlett, writing in the conservative National Review, presented an opposing view.

Although there are legitimate criticisms to make of the Electoral College, the Colorado effort is nothing but a transparently partisan effort to give Kerry a couple of extra electoral votes. If the election this year is as close as the polls suggest it will be, it could mean the margin of victory.

Here is a more objective analysis of Amendment 36 and its significance for America.

One set of proposals looks toward keeping the electoral college but eliminating its winner-take-all features. This shift could be brought about by choosing most electors on a congressional district basis, with only two electors per state chosen statewide. A 1969 Maine law provides for this method, and similar legislation has been considered in several other states. Alternatively, the office of elector could be eliminated and the electoral votes of a state simply assigned to candidates on the basis of the popular vote each receives. Constitutional amendments to that effect have been introduced in Congress but none has passed. These changes might eliminate some distortion of the popular vote, but they would not answer the complaint that the people do not elect the president directly.

Hamilton made the original argument in favor of the Electoral College in Federalist Paper #68. He even raised the spector of a "Manchurian Candidate":

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

One factor that weighs (perhaps) subjectively for proponents of one-man, one vote, is the idea that the principle of a winner-takes-all voting system, embedded in the principle of a winner-takes-all society, is exactly what is wrong with contemporary democracy and the rule of law. One may wonder why millions of potential voters shy away from the political system, why millions of potential voters shun politics as a legitimate concern and why millions of potential voters have adopted the cynical attitude that voting for one's representatives is a sham and that only the rich and powerful have real voices in the body politic.

Perhaps Amenment 36 will pass when voters in Colorado go to the polls on November 2, perhaps not. One way or the other, the citizens of that great state have cast the die for future consideration of the Republic. Those who favor the amendment will cheer if it passes; those who are against it will decry its passage – and vice versa.

One could argue that only democracy stands to win with this vote, no matter what the outcome. The sleeping giant of popular democracy has awakened from its long hibernation. The future could belong to the people, not the monied interests. The principle of a winner-takes-all election may soon shift to focus on the princple of a winner-takes-all society -- and America can only benefit from such scrutiney.

In that sense, for people of good will everywhere, 36 may indeed be their lucky number.

Nous Sommes Tous Americains

Just as the first Kerry-Bush debate failed to deal with the principle of preemtive war, so too did the Edwards-Cheney debate miss an opportunity to examine why America – and the world – has become so politically divided in the months following of 9/11.

In the days that followed the disaster in New York, it seemed as though the entire world was on America's side, sympathizing with those who lost their lives on 9/11 and showing complete solidarity with the American people and America as a nation. What happened that day was not only a shock to New Yorkers and Americans, it was shock heard round the world. As I recall, one French headline blared, "Maintenent, nous sommes tous Americains" (Now we are all Americans).

After the Bush Administration's refusal to defer to the international community and its rush to judgement in basing an invasion of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction, virtually the entire industrialised world first questioned, then protested and finally turned away from American leadership in the world. Polls taken in Europe at the time of the invasion showed every country except Poland against the American incursion in Iraq without UN sanctions – including a majority in the UK, Spain and Italy, countries that initially joined the so-called coalition of the willing.

Ironically, after France's refusal to support the Bush administration's war, conservative Americans turned against the people of France – those same people who a few months earlier had proclaimed their solidarity with America. In effect, Bush's rank and file ignored the reasons that virtually the whole world, including the French, had supported America when it was attacked unjustly by foreign elements and then condemned them for protesting when the Bush administration invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Unfortunately, the Edwards-Cheney debate did not deal with this issue to the extent that it deserves. If Kerry wins in November, it may take him four more years just to repair the damage Bush has done to international relations. If Bush wins ... well, the French have a word for that -- merde.

Waiting for Godot?

Although Kerry seems to have got the better of Bush during the debates, there were few intellectual fireworks and even fewer shifts in public opinion. The three debates reminded me of the three Acts of Waiting for Godot, the existentialist play by Samuel Beckett. The drama centers around the characters of Vladimir and Estragon and their desperate search for hope in a world that seems increasingly hopeless to them. Godot's main theme comes at the beginning of the play:

Estragon: Nothing to be done.

Vladimir: I'm beginning to come round to that opinion.

It seems that many former Bush supporters are also losing hope. Among the conservative groups that largely supported Bush over Gore in 2000 are the anarcho-capitalists, to use Noam Chomsky's term. Interestingly, this group may be headed towards a Kerry vote or, at least, an abstention during the 2004 elections. The Bush Betrayal by James Bovard. The message: there's no hope under Bush.

Others agree, but for different reasons. Consider, for example, the Bush administration's use of faulty or misleading science, as documented in Science's Political Bulldog.

A recent article in Le Monde Diplomatique, What's The Matter With West Virginia?, shows that in West Virginia, despite Bush's tax gift to the wealthiest 1 percent, the poor and underprivileged still seem to favor him over Kerry. The message: there's no hope for Kerry.

Robert Sheer outlines the pitfalls of the "undecided" undecided vote in The Dangers of a "What the Heck Vote".

Don't say you weren't warned. Yes, you, that otherwise reasonable centrist voter who might be tempted to cast a "what the heck" vote for George W. Bush. Don't kid yourself that the Cheneys, Ashcrofts and Rumsfelds who molded Bush's thoughts will suddenly moderate their radical vision for remaking the world or dampen their attacks on our treasury and civil liberties. It won't happen: Reward their rampage of the last four years with a new mandate to rule and they will only be emboldened.

Perhaps Steve Young got it right after all. No matter how hopeless things seem, Bush comes up smelling like roses. Check out his tongue-in-cheek piece entitled THIS JUST IN...

Kerry Saves Busload of Blind Orphans...Bush's Lead Widens!!!, by Steve Young

Sept. 27, 2004 -- HOLLYWOOD (apj.us) -- In what seems like another in a string of bad luck moves by the hapless Democratic candidate during a standard mundane stump speech in Tuscaloosa, John Kerry shocked the napping crowd by jumping into raging Mississippi River flood waters to pull fifty-five blind orphans and all but one of their seeing-eye dogs out of their sinking buses.

In poll taken by Harris, Gallup and USA Today thirty-five seconds after the rescue, 62% of likely voters found that Kerry's heroism was "too showy."

Republicans were quick to jump on the incident.

"First he doesn't save a busload of blind orphans, then he does," drolled Vice President Dick Cheney. "This guy can't make up his mind."

"A hero?" asked House Majority leader Tom DeLay. "Ask the kid whose dog he chose to leave behind."

A FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll revealed the 89% of their viewers believe that there was a direct link between blind orphans drowning and Kerry.

"Kerry's an opportunist," claimed a former blind orphan not on the bus. "He's probably planning to become a Supreme Court justice after he serves as president, and knew saving those kids would become a plus during confirmation."

One has to wonder whether this is the future:

Who could have imagined, at the turn of this century, how quickly and completely the American republic would collapse? Historically, the decline and fall of great empires normally takes place over decades, and in the case of Rome, over several centuries. The disintegration of the United States took place in just a few brief years.

While many Americans are convinced that John Kerry is Godot, in a race that by any logical standard should have catapulted Kerry to double digits by now, he still seems trapped in his own inconsistencies. At the Democratic National Convention Kerry told his audience that "hope is on the way". In the run up to the 2004 elections, in a country completely devoid of hope for many under George Bush, Kerry will have to pull off a hat trick to convince people that he is Godot and that "hope is on the way". As things stand, for many voters, the coming election -- like Waiting for Godot -- could end up as an exercise in futility.

What Would Chairman Mao Say?

As U. S. Presidential debates go, the first one between Kerry and Bush was fairly substantial. Both candidates raised issues and both occasionally scored debating points. There were few, if any, ad hominem attacks and both men came across as reasonable, well-meaning individuals. Both men also missed opportunities to score debating points. As far as declaring a winner, there can be no doubt that Kerry got the best of his opponent. Most polls seemed to confirm that view, as did the observors at Fox News. That should say something about the objectivity of the findings.

Disappointment among Bush supporters went right to the top of the intellectual pecking order this time. According Jay Nordlinger, Managing Editor of National Review:

I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember — talk about repetition! — I concede this as someone who loves the man.

Andrew Sullivan was slightly less critical of Bush but nevertheless felt compelled to conclude his October 1st blog with these words:

Watching Bush last night, I saw a president who sometimes didn't seem in control of his job, a man who couldn't and didn't defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was "hard work," who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled.

Most bloggers that support Bush called the debate a draw; most Kerry bloggers gave their man the edge. As far as I know, no one mentioned the fact that neither candidate dealt with the key issue pertaining to the war in Iraq, the question of pre-emptive military strikes.

When Kerry was asked if he accepted the idea of pre-emptive war, he responded in the affirmative. But he did not elaborate the point except to say something about "protecting American interests". He seemed to be parroting Bush, accepting Bush's definition. Neither candidate raised the core question: what is the underlying principle of pre-emptive military strikes?

Clearly, each candidate has a different understanding of this term. Bush takes the position that the U.S. has the right to strike out militarily to protect what it perceives to be "American interests", even when there is no clear threat -- even when there is only a threat of a threat. It would be a bit like attacking the Netherlands because the International Criminal Court in The Hague (which Bush opposes) could conceivably, someday, possibly, perhaps ... capture and put on trial American citizens accused of committing war crimes. The mere existence of the court could be perceived as intrinsically threatening to Bush and, based on his Iraqi invasion rationale, the U.S. could simply carpet bomb the Dutch seat of government and reduce the Court to rubble. Shock and awe politics!

When it comes to unilateral military action, the Bush administration does not intend to honor its commitment to the U.N. Charter and the rule of international law. The rationale behind this position is, quite simply, the principle that might is right.

Kerry's position – although he did not explain it clearly – is based on the principle of self-defense. This principle is enshrined in the U.N. Charter. This Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, recognizes the right of a state to retaliate when attacked, as the U.S. did against Afghanistan when it became clear that the organizers of 9/11 were under the protection of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The principle of self-defense also extends to threats of attack in cases where there is convincing evidence of an imminent attack. But it does not extend to the arbitrary use of military power to "get rid of bad guys", pursue state interests, safeguard oil reserves that belong to someone else, occupy lands that belong to someone else, help allies occupy lands that belong to someone else or tilt at wind mills.

The difference between the positions of Bush and Kerry is the difference between military aggression and self-defense. While Kerry wants to play by accepted international rules, Bush is ready to wing it and, it would seem, "shoot first and ask questions later."

What Bush and his supporters seem to forget is that if one nation can justify attacking other nations on any pretence other than self-defense, any other nation could do the same. If the U.S. can employ the principle of arbitrary military strikes to enforce its foreign policy, as it did in Iraq, what is to stop China or any other nation from deciding to take pre-emptive military action against the United States or some other nation? It's a principle that could fit the India-Pakistan border dispute like a glove, to mention the most obvious case. The Bush foreign policy doctrine seems to be: nuke your enemy before your enemy nukes you.

This very succinct analysis of pre-emptive war, written by Paul Schroeder, an extract from an article that appeared in American Conservative, Vol. 1, No. 2 (October 21, 2002), pp. 8–20, provides some historical context about the notion of pre-emptive war.

Also see The Folly of Pre-emptive War.

In resurrecting the principle of military aggression from now-defunct communist wars of liberation and the fascist "Lebensraum" excuse to seize land belonging to others, the Bush administration is sending a dangerous message to the world: don't count on the rule of law to settle differences -- political power comes from the barrel of a gun!

And yes -- that's what Chairman Mao would say.