« No End in Sight | Main | Meanwhile, In Iran »
July 31, 2007
The Passion of the Cheney
I'm not really sure what Brian is getting at here. The fact that there are NeoCons and Christian Rightists and atheists (are there atheists?) in the Bush administration doesn't detract from the outfit's ideological coherence in recent years. It just means they have separate spheres of influence. The Christian Right controls the social policy, while the NeoCons have, at times, governed the international sector. There are business types in there too, and they control regulatory policy. And all these groups unite around Bush because he sections the place off to give them their own personal fiefdoms.
But within these fiedoms, there can still be conflict. The central division in foreign policy has been between Scowcroft-style realists and NeoCons. In the years following 9/11, the NeoCons -- led by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz -- were ascendant. In the last few years, they have lost Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and a variety of lesser known, but still important, fellow travelers. These are big losses for the NeoCons. And literally every one of these positions has been filled with a realist, Rice-type of some sort. Rice passed over Bolton for Zoellick. Gates succeeded Rumsfeld. Gordon England succeeded Paul Wolfowitz. This dude you don't know succeeded some other guy you didn't know, but who mattered. Cheney's Middle East advisor just quit. And there are more.
And this has been over Cheney's objections. One of the interesting stories in Stephen Hayes book-length massage of the vice-president is that after Bush let Rumsfeld go, Cheney was angry enough to disagree publicly:
An aide fired one tough question after another at the vice president. Then: Did you agree with President Bush's decision to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense?
"Absolutely not," Cheney replied without elaborating. His answer surprised the small group with him, but it was the answer he was determined to give if Wallace asked, even at the risk of angering his boss. But the story was a month old, and Wallace never asked the question.
To believe that America will go to war with Iran is to believe that Cheney will overcome Condoleeza Rice, Robert Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, just about everyone controlling the machinery of the government, and convince Bush to make a move that could very well lead to impeachment and would, at the least, imperil the project in Iraq -- to which Bush ties his legacy -- beyond anything we've yet seen. And unlike with Iraq, he will be making this argument without an available military, without public support, without an ally heading the Defense Department, without Tony Blair providing international cover, without the memories of 9/11 emboldening the president, etc. It's a far tougher road to hoe.
That doesn't mean it won't happen. Events can take over. Cheney could input the launch codes during Bush's next colonoscopy. But, for now, Cheney's power appears to be ebbing, and the odds are against an attack.
July 31, 2007 in Iran | Permalink
Comments
This is who he probably meant by atheists.
Posted by: kamov | Jul 31, 2007 8:13:05 AM
Actually, more than a few leading neoconservatives are nonbelievers. I think (though I'm not sure -- you'll have to check) that Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol, among others, have more or less publicly admitted to being atheists. (And though Cheney has never fessed up I'd bet the ranch that, in his heart of hearts, he's a godless heathen as well).
It's part of their Straussian worldview -- though they like the baby Jeebus because it's a convenient way of controlling the yokels, they view themselves as an intellectual elite who are of course above such backward superstition and who dwell exclusively in the realms of the Higher Truth.
I've always thought that the atheist Bushies would make a fascinating topic for an article. The cynical, corrupt, and thoroughly disrespectful and condescending way they exploit others' sincere religious beliefs is, of course, revolting. And what about the believers themselves? Do they have any idea they're being played for such suckers? I'm sure they'd be appalled if they knew the neocons' true religious leanings.
I think that probably the rank and file don't have any idea that so many neocon leading lights are atheists, but that many of the Christian right leaders are well aware of this fact. Which makes them, if possible, even more cynical and morally loathesome than their neocon counterparts are.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 31, 2007 8:46:47 AM
It's a far tougher road to hoe.
LOL. You are definitely a city guy.
Rows are hoed, not roads.
Posted by: Emma Zahn | Jul 31, 2007 12:05:37 PM
Useful synopsis of the decline of the Cheney wing, which is a very significant shift.
It's worth distinguishing atheism, which (in its common usage) asserts there is no God, and agnosticism, which (in its common usage) asserts no knowledge of whether there is a God. I'm not sure any of those mentioned here are atheists.
Kathy, I think I get what you're saying, but it's just wrong. That nonbelievers appeal to the religious beliefs of others, or see those beliefs as a good thing, doesn't entail any of the awful things you infer, nor does the fact that religious leaders know Rove isn't a believer and yet still support him make them cynical or morally odious at all.
As for Strauss, I'm not a Straussian (as that's normally understood--I can't say what Strauss really had in mind), but I'm sympathetic to some of the questions he raised, which deserve more serious attention from those thrashing about in issues regarding the cultural bases of fundamental beliefs.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 12:06:19 PM
Kathy, I think I get what you're saying, but it's just wrong. That nonbelievers appeal to the religious beliefs of others, or see those beliefs as a good thing, doesn't entail any of the awful things you infer, nor does the fact that religious leaders know Rove isn't a believer and yet still support him make them cynical or morally odious at all.
As usual context is everything. I rather doubt that Kathy was speaking to the abstract, sanitize formulation above.
Certainly there is nothing unethical or deceptive in a non-believer appealing to the religious sentiments of the believer, so long as it is made clear to the believer that the one making the appeal doesn't share those sentiments.
Of course that isn't how it's done in our actually existing politics. The cynics of the Right allow the base to assume a shared belief system because that strengthens their sense of political and personal identification with the Right. It consolidates the base and makes them easier to "manage".
The idea that such deception and manipulation by omission bears no moral and ethical onus is disturbing, to say the least.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Jul 31, 2007 12:31:51 PM
Bush and those who make these appeals are true believers. Rove, et al are open about their beliefs and don't make the same appeals Bush does. There's no deception or manipulation by omission, no attempt to appear to be what they aren't, not that I've seen. Maybe you have examples of what you find so disturbing?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 12:44:31 PM
Sanpete, in common usage, agnosticism seems to be the aknowledgment that one does not know there is a God. The distinction between actively asserting the non-existence of God and unbelief in God is covered with the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism."
You also seem to be arguing that since Rove did not, personally, stand up and make religious appeals to believers himself and instead used Bush as a puppet to articulate those appeals in his pursuit of political power for the Republican party, that there was no ethical issue here. But you'd never find an ethical/moral problem anywhere, with anyone, so stop pretending that your argument has any substantive point.
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 31, 2007 12:58:12 PM
The distinction between actively asserting the non-existence of God and unbelief in God is covered with the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism."
Rather misleadingly and confusedly. If people speaking that way checked a dictionary it would help.
You also seem to be arguing that since Rove did not, personally, stand up and make religious appeals to believers himself and instead used Bush as a puppet to articulate those appeals in his pursuit of political power for the Republican party, that there was no ethical issue here.
I don't think Rove has used Bush as a puppet. (I thought the rage du jour was that Bush was Cheney's puppet.) Rove has supported and guided a man whom he thought had what it takes to advance Republican causes, and part of that is appeal to religious belief. There's nothing wrong with that, no more than with a utilitarian supporting and guiding a politician to make Kantian moral arguments, if that's what the politician believes in. (*Gasp,* it happens!)
But you'd never find an ethical/moral problem anywhere, with anyone, so stop pretending that your argument has any substantive point.
Hardly. For example, I find a moral problem with willfully misrepresenting the views of others, as you do in that quote. Do you also see that as an moral problem?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 2:10:20 PM
Sanpete, it has been well known that Rove felt that Bush was a vehicle for delivering long-term Republican dominance, and one of the pillars of that strategy was usingspecific religious appeals to evangelicals in order to do so. I meant "puppet" in the most literal sense, as in using Bush to mouth the religious platitudes delivered to Bush as a means of attracting evangelical voters. I'd consider it just as immoral if Jesse Jackson had surrounded himself with those who had segregationist sympathies developing his strategy to attract black voters during the 1988 and 1984 primaries. Your argumentation is naive and misguided, believing that Bush's staff was involved in simply shaping his message delivery rather than making very strategic decisions about how to exploit beliefs they themselves did not have in order to attract and solidify power.
Why is "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" confusing. Those are the terms used by, you know, atheists. Perhaps they are confusing to you, in which case you should fix confusion. "Agnostic" always struck me as a positive assertion about one's unsurity. Agnosticism lapses into atheism (a-theism) when one simply stops thinking about the matter. Atheism is a statement about a belief one does NOT have. There are many atheists, some of the evangelical sort, and some of the "i have no belief in God just like I have no belief in fairies" sort.
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 31, 2007 2:40:13 PM
I'd consider it just as immoral if Jesse Jackson had surrounded himself with those who had segregationist sympathies developing his strategy to attract black voters during the 1988 and 1984 primaries.
There's a big difference, as was already implicit in my previous response. You're talking about Jackson using people who represent what he opposes, thinks is morally wrong. Rove hasn't done that. He favors religion as a good thing.
Your argumentation is naive and misguided, believing that Bush's staff was involved in simply shaping his message delivery rather than making very strategic decisions about how to exploit beliefs they themselves did not have in order to attract and solidify power.
Nothing I've said implies this, I don't believe it, and it's irrelevant to my point.
The "atheism" thing is a long topic. Basically, it seems to me in general that the most useful lines to draw about beliefs are based on the assertions involved, not the certainty with which they're held. That's best preserved by defining "atheism" as the denial of the existence of God and "agnosticism" as not asserting either the existence or non-existence of God. That way there is no confusion about overlap between the two. It's also most closely in line with standard usage, including uses like "I'm agnostic about whether the tax cuts helped." Not a big deal, but I think it's the most useful and correct (standard) way.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 3:48:42 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
