GUESTWORDS: By E.L. Doctorow
The Unfeeling President
I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.But this president does not know what death is. He hasn’t the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can’t seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.
He does not mourn. He doesn’t understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.
They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.
How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war’s aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.
He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.
Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing — to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends.
A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel.
But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners’ jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.
And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.
But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over he world most of the time.
But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.
The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.
Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.
written 9.9.04 for the east hampton star
02 September, 2005
Stolen from Rosie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Emma,
a well-chosen article. The writer seems like a John Kerry supporter!
I still feel that the war against Iraq, badly planned, badly managed, badly sold, and probably unlawful, was more right than wrong. The portrayal of a strutting George W, rings true, insofar as anything can be judged purely from the media.
I still like him, though I can't imagine him shedding tears on camera like his father did when talking about his own dead offspring.
Have a nice weekend.
You LIKE George Bush? Seriously? Even if I was conserative minded I would find him hard to like, he comes across as so fake.
I see more to him, but so did half the people who voted last year.
My mother read me this post from Rosie's blog just yesterday.
I DO NOT like Bush at all, and I think that the war was a big mistake in every way, but just because I don't think Bush is Satan incarnate and that the troops should not be pulled out now, she now thinks I am a Republican.
Editor, what exactly do you see to him? What am I missing? And can you make up your mind on a name? Is it editor or Frank? What would you like to be called?
Name I cannot type, If you think the war was a big mistake, why do you think the troops shouldn't be pulled out?
Emma,
sorry for the name confusion. I'll be Frank when I visit your site. That's my real name, short for Francis of course, and now that you raise it, I think I'll start using my name in my own comments boxes too. (Bobo doesn't exist, by the way, it's just a pseudonym for certain postings.)
George W. Bush. I got to like him more when I saw him speaking, apparently sincerely, without scripts or notes at various times after 9/11. In common with him, I have had a few drinks in my time and been to a few prayer meetings and bible groups. I still like the few pints though not the religion, but I guess I feel some empathy with his black and white view of the world, and, being Irish, my emotions are easily tugged.
Where I depart from him is I don't actually believe that the real world can be seen in black and white, good and evil, etc. terms. And his reaction to the flooding in New Orleans showed, I thought, a flippancy, perhaps even a cruel old Texan streak. The scale of the casualties may have taken a while to register, and I don't doubt that his reaction may have been 'slightly different' if the location had been Houston. But even a Republican president should have been more aware of the probable economic impact of the hurricane.
As for Iraq? Well! American foreign policy has long been a law unto itself. Look at Central and South America in the 1970s and 80s, for example. The legality of the Iraq invasion is irrelevant if, as the UK Attorney General pointed out, no-one's going to prosecute them. I think the removal of Saddam is a good thing for Iraq, for the region and for humanity. The continuing bombings in Iraq seem to me to be part of a civil war rather than a noble Iraqi version of the French Resistance.
After all that, I wish the Americans to know that they are not to be thinking of doing the same thing in Iran, N Korea, Burma or anywhere else. And John Kerry? I would have been happy to see him elected, but he wasn't, so I hope George W doesn't do too much harm and gets Iraq fixed during the next couple of years. I can't see any good coming of just leaving when the place is still in a heap. It's not the same as Vietnam in that sense.
Now am I forgiven?
Sometimes I have the odd moment of brightness, and I did realize that Frank was Francis. Though I do wonder why people tend to use Frank instead, because Francis is quite a nice name. Not that there's anything wrong with Frank of course, though it makes me think of my dad's friend and so automatically in my head I picture you as black Irish with bushy eyebrows. As for the non existent Bobo, I quite like him and am sorry you have shattered the illusion that he actually was a living breathing thing. A clown or a dog like creature I had in my head.
I think my problem with ol' George is that I saw no reason for going into Iraq, not at that time anyway. I agree the world, and certainly Iraqis, are better off without him. But why did the US not invade Rwanda during their genocide (and yes, I do realize that was under the Clinton government.) If it weren't for oil, and perhaps a one up on his dad, this current administration would not have gone near Iraq.
But I could be very wrong.
And forgiven for what? Are you to be forgiven for your position on American politics? I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion, and debate is a grand thing. I would like to know your position on Canadian politics! I suppose I could forgive you for the fact that you like a few pints, but I don't think that's what you were talking about. I can't drink beer myself, makes me sick, but I am fond of the odd tequila paralyzer. Or two. Or four. Very rarely, of course.
Bobo lives. He's a character, as is The Mammy Who Knows Everything. real characters.
Canadian politics? I'll hav to mull that over. You have a governor-general, don't you?
We do have a governor-general. A new one in fact, who is currently hanging out in Scotland with her sullen looking daughter and the Queen.
Oh goodness...where to begin?
Well, first, I think the war was a mistake in that we were misled into it. It is widely documented that our case was "sexed up." Colin Powell and CIA Director Tenet have had similar opinions.
I think our entry into Iraq has not made the US safer, only diverted our attention from our real problems. It created more terrorists through the insurgency.
The only good thing I can see that came of this fiasco is that we got rid of Saddam.
That said, I don't believe we should just chuck the whole thing, and pull out tomorrow. Our goal there right now, whether or not it was right for us to go there in the first place, is to provide protection and some amount of security until the Iraqis build a government and military that can protect themselves. We should do whatever it takes to send more troops, not necessarily American ones, so that this goal is accomplished as quickly as possible. If we leave, and the country falls into more anarchy than it has already, our soldiers would have truly died in vain.
In a nutshell, we f--- it up, we fix it.
~E
Post a Comment