The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush

Rating:
Summary: The Author of Inconsistency and Hypocrisy
Review: (...) I am not a huge fan of President Bush, and I think many of his actions should be questioned but Singer stated objective in this book is to bridge the gap of the 'hate' Bush books with a reasoned critique. He fails miserably on both accounts; not enough hate for the rabid left and not enough reason for the intelligent.

One aggravating part of the book was Mr. Singers condescending tone, and the way he treats anyone who disagrees with his assumptions. This condescension along with a simplistic prose makes one wonder if he has the view that he is lecturing a child whom he feels beneath him. I prefer to be spoken at, not down to as this book does. But perhaps the most frustrating part of the whole book is the rank hypocrisy that is extant throughout it. If you hold Singer to a yardstick of rational and logical standards you will find the book fails dreadfully.

For example, Singer debates two dissimilar laws one is about the use of marijuana and the other is about the role of the EPA. In the first case Singer take the position that states should have more rights, they should be able to enact laws and legislation without the federal government interfering. It would then also be the states responsibility to police and enforce these issues because they do better job at it. What is interesting is that President Bush disagrees about the use of drugs but agrees with the notion that states should have the right to choose on both laws. Bush puts aside his dislike of drugs to keep a steady and logical grasp upon the issue of states rights. Singer on the other hand only uses such notions as states rights to help impose upon us his political ideology as we will see.

If you cherish logic and consistency as I do then you would think that Singer would want to impose the same doctrine of states rights on the issue of the EPA laws, but alas, he wants the federal government to be in control and not the states and the rationale he gives:

"(E)nforcement problems tend to be national rather than specific to particular states" (74) This is the opposite reasoning that is used for the changing of the drug laws. Singer simply spins every issue, logic and reasoning are thrown out, inconsistency and ideology rules the day, and truth, as we will learn shortly, is a malleable concept to Singer.

On page 101 Singer declares that portions of Bush's speech are divisive because they sometimes hint at his belief in God. Although this shows a great insecurity that Mr. Singer harbors what is interesting is that he insists that Bush should not mention God. In reality Mr. Singer is proposing a restriction on the president's liberty and right to free speech. But 7 pages later when singer admits that some of his ideas and speeches may offend people he does not self censure his freedom of speech, instead he pens the following

"What offends people is not fixed. People can learn to be more tolerant, and that is a better solution than restricting the liberty of others." (108)

So according to Singer we must be tolerant of his thoughts and learn to not be offended. But we must be intolerant of Bush's thoughts because someone might be offended. This is a blatant double standard which shows Singers persistent unfairness and his inability to be partial.

There are a plethora of other examples in this tome of hypocrisy. But near the end of the book we realize why Singer cannot reason rationally. On page 212-213 Singer explains that nearly everyone who has been associated with Bush, enemies and allies have come away feeling that he is exceptionally honest. In a book about ethics you would think that Bush would be applauded but instead Singer proclaims that taking the obligation to be truthful and acting upon it consistently suggests an arrested moral development. (213)

Read that again and let it sink in, Peter Singer lecturing on ethics says telling the truth shows that you are morally backward, therefore lying shows a higher evolution of your morals. That is the whole book in a nutshell; the preaching of narcissistic moral relativism that pervades the authors thought pattern. Singers' applauding of moral relativism no doubt resides strongly in him because of his academic background. It would be comforting to think that Singer and his ilk are the minority but it is truly scary to think that these miscreants are the norm in our pathetic world of academia. No wonder why our children can't reason logically.

While Singer stated in the beginning that he wanted to discuss Bush's ethics, in the end the book does more to affirm Singers morally relativistic positions then dissect Bush. It has to be obvious to the impartial observer that Singer has a deep seated, almost metaphysical anger toward Bush. This book unfortunately, is written for the simpleton choir, whose rallying cry is their hatred of President Bush. Truth, logic and reasoned be damned, hypocrisy rules the day. For all the reasons stated above I do not suggest this book.

Rating:
Summary: The Best Bush Book Yet!
Review: A lot of people dismiss Bush as a corporate controlled politician. Peter Singer does not. He gives the president the benefit of the doubt, trusts him, and that makes his book much more engaging than other books scrutinizing Bush.

The book reveals Bush's inconsistency and mistakes with more clarity and insight than any major newspaper or magazine, it holds Bush accountable for his failings in the economy, the the environment, Afghanistan, Iraq, and just about everything else.

This book is essential for a real look at George W. Bush's presidency. John Kerry would do well to read it.

Rating:
Summary: Consider the Source
Review: Any book by Peter Singer should contain a warning label. The author of the phrase "Specism" (prejudice against animals) also advocates killing those who cannot comprehend that they are "entities with a future". Healthy newborns fall into this category (up to a month after birth). He sees no real taboo in animal-human sex and fanatically promotes his theory of the greater good whereby individuals are submlimated to society "as a whole." It's the gawdawful contradictions that stand out: Buying a leather couch, eating a hot dog or going to the circus is tantamount to murder; killing a healthy baby 28 days after birth is perfectly acceptable. With those views in mind, Mr. Singer wrote a book about George Bush and his ethics.

Politically, Mr. Singer is (of course) a Leftist of the Marcusian mode. He has spoken glowingly of the need for an authoritarian regime of intellectuals who will teach the masses correct thoughts. There is also a strain of Primitivism, the notion that we should emulate the ancient folks who allegedly lived in harmony with Earth and its creatures. They also slept on the ground and died at age 30 but why get picky? Needless to say he finds Bush disturbing as much for his morals as his politics. He can't stand the black and white world Bush inhabits; real people are nuanced, subtle, skeptical. Much of the book is allegedly an examination of the moral stance of the Prez but is actually lots of psycho-babble with quotes from like-minded academic folks...lots of suppositions, opinions expanded into statements of fact, mumbo-jumbo passing as evidence.

In the end he attacks religion (well, Christianity). As a secularist I find the number of intellectuals who have adopted ideology as a religion disturbing. All else is secondary to the credo of their belief - exactly like religion. Their fervor puts a rightwing Christian to shame.

Singer, as usual, has all the subtlety of a jack hammer on high. He is, though, utterly predictable. It is hard to imagine two world views more diametrically opposed than Singer's and Bush. But Singer harms the very movements he touches. Those really concerned with animal treatment are wrongfully bunched with him and his absurd pronouncements. Those advocating vegetarianism as a healthy lifestyle are linked with his ravings on the subject. As a final joke to the world, this advocate of euthansia for infants and violence toward scientists is a Professor of Ethics - go figure.

Rating:
Summary: Quietly Devastating
Review: As a sort of corrective to such recent books on the current occupant of the White House as David Frum's "The Right Man" and John Podhoretz's "Bush Country," noted ethicist Peter Singer's book "The President of Good & Evil" takes a dispassionate but quietly devastating look at George W. Bush's ethical failings in office. It should be required reading for all Americans who are planning on voting this November.

Singer doesn't get angry and heated over the way that Bush has handled the events of the past few years. His is a very subdued, rational approach, and as such it is more effective (and, incidentally, more devastating) than fire breathing rhetoric would have been. He simply subjects Bush's statements to intense ethical scrutiny, and it will surprise no one who doesn't get their opinions from Fox News that, time after time, even when Singer goes out of his way to give him the benefit of the doubt, Bush comes up short.

My favorite example of this is when Bush is pre-taping a radio address the day before he's scheduled to go to California. The text of the broadcast read: "Today I am in California," but Bush kept petulantly saying, "But I'm not in California." Singer's comment on this inane behavior is priceless: "Taking the obligation to be truthful so literally suggests an arrested moral development." And the analysis that flows from this insight, inspired by the work of Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, is not only plausible, it's pretty terrifying to consider the very real possibility that we have been led into war and hundreds of Americans have lost their lives because the man running the country is morally retarded. But I wouldn't bet against it.

Regardless of whether you support George W. Bush or not (and I should think it's pretty clear by now that I do not), you owe it to yourself to read "The President of Good & Evil" and consider what it says very carefully before you go into the polling place next November. There's a lot at stake, and this book might make a difference. I hope it will.

Rating:
Summary: Quietly Devastating
Review: As a sort of corrective to such recent books on the current occupant of the White House as David Frum's "The Right Man" and John Podhoretz's "Bush Country," noted ethicist Peter Singer's book "The President of Good & Evil" takes a dispassionate but quietly devastating look at George W. Bush's ethical failings in office. It should be required reading for all Americans who are planning on voting this November.

Singer doesn't get angry and heated over the way that Bush has handled the events of the past few years. His is a very subdued, rational approach, and as such it is more effective (and, incidentally, more devastating) than fire breathing rhetoric would have been. He simply subjects Bush's statements to intense ethical scrutiny, and it will surprise no one who doesn't get their opinions from Fox News that, time after time, even when Singer goes out of his way to give him the benefit of the doubt, Bush comes up short.

My favorite example of this is when Bush is pre-taping a radio address the day before he's scheduled to go to California. The text of the broadcast read: "Today I am in California," but Bush kept petulantly saying, "But I'm not in California." Singer's comment on this inane behavior is priceless: "Taking the obligation to be truthful so literally suggests an arrested moral development." And the analysis that flows from this insight, inspired by the work of Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, is not only plausible, it's pretty terrifying to consider the very real possibility that we have been led into war and hundreds of Americans have lost their lives because the man running the country is morally retarded. But I wouldn't bet against it.

Regardless of whether you support George W. Bush or not (and I should think it's pretty clear by now that I do not), you owe it to yourself to read "The President of Good & Evil" and consider what it says very carefully before you go into the polling place next November. There's a lot at stake, and this book might make a difference. I hope it will.

Rating:
Summary: Overall, a good examination with few weak points!
Review: As one who is intersted in political philosophy and ethics, it has always befuddled me why there is such a death of popular books looking at politics from a moral point of view. With this book, though, ethicist Peter Singer has shown the necessity of examining politics through such a lens - especially the politics of a president who invokes moral justifications as much as George W. Bush does.

Singer offers us a cogent and meticulous examination of Bush's ethical stances on domestic economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. Singer's particular focus is on demonstrating not only (a) inconsistencies in Bush's ethics and (b)highlighting discrepancies between what Bush says and what he does.

As an example of (a), Singer points out that while Bush justifies his opposition to stem-cell research by asserting, in natural rights language, that we must be a culture that values the importance of all human life, he simultaneously shows no hesitancy to use utilitarian logic when it comes to warring with Iraq (the unavoidable killing of innocents might be outweighed by the benefit of liberating Iraq and - supposedly - making American lives safer.) An example of (b) might be that during his campaign for president, Bush exalted states rights rhetoric, but when he came to office, Bush showed no hesitancy to trump states rights by proposing and supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (marriage having always been the domain of the states.) In 200+ pages of deft analysis, Singer offers many examples of both types of inconsistency and offers many good arguments for both.

The only problems I had with the book are these: first, Singer is so convinced of his own ethical stances that he finds little need to argue for those views so much as argue against the president's. A prime example is when Singer takes issue with Bush's assertions that America is an amazingly free society by suggesting that since we don't spend more on programs to help the poor, that we really aren't that free at all. With little argument to show why more income redistribution necessarily equals more freedom, I am left to think that libertarians and conservatives (who do not take this as given) will hardly be convinced by this. In other words, it is chapters like these, where Singer takes his own ethical stances for granted, that he will achieve nothing more than preaching to the already converted.

Another problem I had is that while Singer does a good job highlighting how Bush's presidential record differs much from his campaign rhetoric, he seems unaware of two possible explanations: If Bush's campaign rhetoric differs from his in-office action, it might be that like many presidents in history, Bush may have found that the realities and exigencies of office rendered his pre-office ideas either unachievable or in need of modification so as to garner congressional support.) If, as Singer suggests, the fact that Bush's campaign rhetoric fails to match his presidential dealings makes him immoral, then i can think of exactly no president that would be deemed moral by this criterion (Reagan? Bush Sr? Clinton?)

All in all, though, this is a solid and well-reasoned book that, contra diatribes by other anti-Bush authors, never degenerates to charged emotionalisms or slams. It is calm, rational, and meticulous. Well worth reading, whatever your position.

Rating:
Summary: Great Resource - Poor Concluding Chapter
Review: Because this book bends over backwards to be fair to Bush, it may make a good present of persuasion. Giving a copy to a Republican friend might create a good deal of cognitive dissonance. Bush comes off as a serious threat to the planet, and not the slightest exaggeration is used to make this case.

Ultimately, however, the book holds Bush to standards he would find alien, and charges him with inconsistency where he would no doubt insist there is none. Not everyone will be converted, not withstanding Singer's references early and late in the book to rational argument and universal standards.

The first 200 of the 225 pages take us on a tour of Bush's ethical pronouncements and behavior, in search of consistency or meaning. This is extremely well done, and each section constitutes a perfect primer on what is wrong with this president and why we need to vote him out.

Predictably, the contradictions are legion and the findings of hypocrisy plentiful. At times, I wish Singer had focused less on Bush's hypocrisy than on the damage done by his behavior.

The one instance in which Singer goes beyond commonly accepted standards to critique an ethical problem in Bush's behavior that most Americans would let pass comes when he suggests that Bush's religious habits of thought constitute a handicap for someone in a position requiring a questioning and discerning mind. Singer suggests that someone who bases his beliefs on faith may not be ideally qualified for a position of power.

Of course every other American president ever elected has been a theist, or at least a deist, or at least has professed to be. But Bush is especially clear about connecting his religion to his decision-making process. I find it credible that Bush's habits of faith deserve the credit Greg Thielmann, a proliferation expert who worked for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, gives them when he says, "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers.'"

I thoroughly enjoyed the first 200 pages of Singer's book, although I longed for some development of what Singer thinks Bush's intentions actually are and whether he thinks Bush is a habitual liar as well as a failed utilitarian. The last 25 pages provided a disappointing analysis.

Singer shows in this final chapter that Bush is not consistently basing his decisions on concern for individual rights or on utilitarian calculations or on Christianity. He then suggests, in what seems to me a major cop-out, that Bush uses an "intuitive ethic" and "follows his instincts." But this tells us nothing about where those "instincts" came from or what they look like or which are stronger than others. It gives us no indication of when Bush is telling us his honest motivations and when he is hiding them. Nor does it explain patterns in Bush's behavior, such as his almost consistent favoritism toward the extremely wealthy and those who have given him money.

But Singer isn't through. He goes on to argue that Bush strikes people who meet him as honest and good, and that Bush must either be a tremendous actor when he lies or (what Singer finds more probable) he must be the ignorant puppet of right-wing conspirators. Singer argues that when Bush, for example, claims that Saddam Hussein wouldn't let inspectors into Iraq it demonstrates that Bush "can hardly have had a firm grasp on the situation that he was supposedly directing." Singer (mustering all the nuance of Bush's "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.") writes on the final page of the book: "When Bush speaks about ethics, he is either sincere or he is insincere."

But it's just not that simple. When Bush invents a fiction about Hussein not letting inspectors in, he knows that he and a servile corporate media have the power to rewrite history. At the same time, to some limited extent, he undoubtedly believes what he is saying. He is coached by his intellectual superiors, and he takes his statements seriously, but at the same time he knows which topics to avoid, when to change the conversation, and how to hedge on the hard points. He does occasional interviews, after all. He doesn't just read speeches. People (including Bush) are far, far more complex than Singer gives them credit for.

The simple-minded conclusion to this book is especially surprising given Singer's critique of religion in the same book. Singer understands that Bush is a sincere Christian, and even faults him for it. Singer also understands that Bush is not consistently a Christian. Yet, Singer does not piece together the fact that Bush's beliefs carry varying DEGREES of sincerity.

When people struggle with trying to "have faith," they are choosing, as Blaise Pascal did openly, to believe something. And this phenomenon is not unique to religion. We choose to believe what we want to believe quite often and often fairly consciously. Some are able to persuade themselves of their belief in paradise to the extent that they will fly airplanes into buildings. Others are able, with a degree of honesty, to say they believe in Heaven, while still beign terrified of death. There is no black and white here. We cannot say that Bush is either sincere or insincere, either a brilliantly handled moron or an acting genius.

Bush is a liar who to various degrees has convinced himself of his various lies. This means that he is a human being who can be held responsible for his actions and who could conceivably be persuaded to change his ways. He is not purely a puppet whose imperialistic oil baron handlers could be seamlessly replaced by environmentally sensitive socialist handlers. Nor does he quite realize the implications of everything he says - including the ethical incoherence of his positions, something that Singer's book would reveal to him - whether or not he'd need to get someone to read it to him aloud.

Rating:
Summary: Provocative Essay On The President's Ethics!
Review: Classic social analysis requires that one focuses on the actions a particular actor accomplishes in service to his cause rather than simply believe his utterances regarding that subject. Nowhere does such a rational focus pay greater dividends than with this straightforward exercise by ethicist Peter Singer into George W. Bush's stated values and beliefs, on the one hand, and his many actions regarding each of these in turn. By showing the glaring contradictions between what the Bush administrations says it stands for, cares about, and wishes to accomplish, on the one hand, and what it actually does in service to such vital public concerns as public education, environmental protection, and foreign policy, the reader comes to understand just what the Bush White House really stands for and whose interests they are focused most on advancing. One clue here; it isn't the common man whose basic concerns 'Dubya' has at heart.

The book takes a quite critical look at most of the official stated policies of the current administration, pitting the rhetoric against actual actions taken by the administration and the crony capitalists the President has placed in key positions in many federal departments and agencies, from Interior to Justice to Commerce to Education to Labor to the EPA. Singer's argument's are well stated and documented, and serve in each case to illustrate the facts as opposed to the public statements regarding the given policies. For example, he questions Attorney John Ashcroft's personal crusade against individual state's right-to die laws, something more motivated by personal religious beliefs held by Mr. Ashcroft than any need for the federal government to intervene. Similarly, he shows how candidate George Bush spoke so convincingly of our need to work in a multi-lateral fashion with our allies and friends to create and forward a more meaningful foreign policy, yet this administration had openly shown it contempt for such diplomacy, preferring to use blunt military force for fashioning American response to international situations.

Indeed, sometimes one has to laugh out loud as one finds the sheer hubris of such contemptible arrogance and duplicity one often finds here, actions parading as being based on faith-based humility and honest earnest concern for the welfare of the common man, yet cynically used to accomplish exactly the opposite of htheir stated goals. George Bush as been described elsewhere as a guy fortunate enough to be born on third base who somehow has convinced himself that he has hit a triple, and nowhere is the arrogant disregard for all the stated pieties of the Bush administration more obvious than in his callous disregard for the American soldiers who he so casually sent into harm's way in Iraq under false pretenses. This administration is one characterized by cynical manipulation and focused on advancing the causes of the corporate class, and the sooner we American come to understand the degree to which we have been lied to and deceived, the better off we will be. This book serves to forward such an admirable set of circumstances. Enjoy!

Rating:
Summary: Shows True Bush: Childish, Simple-Minded and Dangerous
Review: Ethicist, animal rights activist and noted author Peter Singer is too polite to outright call President George W. Bush a childish, simple-minded religious zealot; but his book will leave the reader's thoughts in that disturbingly rocky territory.

Singer's shot across the bow in the current culture war between red and blue states examines the ethics which drive George Bush in making the decisions he foists upon Americans, which also literally affect the entire world.

Singer's book is a piece-by-piece examination of what Bush says and then does-which is often the opposite; as well as the "childish" morality Bush apparently uses to guide his presidency. Examples abound in detailed examinations of the national debt, "faith-based" government programs, "No Child Left Behind," fetal tissue research, his evangelical Christian beliefs and of course, the pointless war in Iraq.

Though a self-professed protector of innocent life, Bush is shown time and again to have no compunction about killing thousands of innocents in war.

Singer shows that Bush's hypocrisy is evident in the issue of fetal tissue research-which Conservative Queen Nancy Reagan supports, I might add-when you apply his reasoning there to matters of combat:

"In defending his decision to refuse federal funds for research that involves destroying human embryos, Bush said, as we have seen, 'I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.' Yet in Afghanistan and in Iraq he unleashed wars that killed, according to the most conservative estimate, more than 4,000 civilians-at least 1,000 in Afghanistan and more than 3,000 in Iraq...Is it consistent for someone who holds Bush's views about the sanctity of human life to be supreme commander of armed forces that use bombs and missiles in areas where civilians are sure to be killed?"

Singer also asks the question few dare to: "Is Bush's Ethic Christian?" Since Bush often grandstands his conversion to fundamentalist Christianity, which made him give up alcohol (and God knows what else) at the age of 41; it is interesting to contrast what his beliefs actually reap when applied to decisions of the presidency:

"The clearest sign of a Christian and, more specifically, evangelical influence on Bush's ethics is his repeated invocation of a conflict between good and evil. We have seen that Bush often talks of "the evil ones" and even occasionally of those who are "servants of evil: He urges us to "call evil by its name," to "fight evil," and tells us that out of evil will come good. This language comes straight out of apocalyptic Christianity. To understand the context in which Bush uses the language, we need to remember that tens of millions of Americans hold an apocalyptic view of the world."

Bush is a grown child of privilege who has the luxury of a childish, myopic take on the world. And it is dangerous for America. Just ask the soldiers in Iraq. Ask a Canadian, a Brit, a Mexican or even a Frenchman if they still view America the same way since Bush's election coup in 2000.

Bush's morality and attitude is one I can recall from recently "saved" (the term for people who 'accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior') children back in high school...the types who burned their rock and roll records, quit relationships with 'non-saved kids (read: non-Southern Baptist)' and stopped saying the words 'damn' or 'hell' unless in a biblical context:

"...the moral fervor of the White House is extraordinarily petty. Ethics rules for staff behavior were enforced [according to conservative David Frum, a former White House employee] ...to "every last absurdity." At a meeting, Frum was asked if he was sure about something, and he replied, 'Yes, I am damn sure.' There was a prolonged silence and the atmosphere suddenly turned chilly. Eventually Frum realized what he had done wrong and amended his reply to, "I am quite sure." This kind of moral fundamentalism-that is, a tendency to take simple moral rules in an absolute and literal fashion-appears to have been set by Bush himself...this is the stage typically reached by early teenage boys."

Singer calls this an example of Bush's "childishly literal notion of what it is to be truthful" which has "set the tone for his entire administration."

I think it make the point clearly about Bush: the man is more equivocal than Clinton, and twice as dangerous.

The President of Good and Evil: the Ethics of George W. Bush is a fine book, and one that should be required reading in college ethics classes. All Singer's arguments are convincing and would be so if the Bushies considered them with a modicum of equanimity-though I somewhat doubt they will.

Greenwood is editor of www.SoonerThought.com

Rating:
Summary: Straw men and circular reasoning
Review: I almost rated the book 2 stars, but only because reading the book gives insight into Singer's prejudices.

Singer sets up his arguments and then uses "might," "seems," etc. in order to reach the conclusion with which he began.

Singer has no understanding of Christianity, which is an obvious weakness in his arguments