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

Rating:
Summary: Why not examine Bill Clinton's ethics?
Review: I am a conservative, but found this book relatively good for a liberal trying to deal with facts. I applaud the author for his attempt, however, his conclusions are often clouded by his thinly veiled personal political agenda. Overall I would recommend this book for anyone that wants to take a fair look at the Bush presidency, but you will be disappointed if you are simply looking for 'facts' and want to avoid typical liberal political dogma.

This book would have been a much better read if it had been regarding the morality and ethics of former president Bill Clinton, but the author is not looking for an interesting story so much as trying to influence the upcoming election.

Rating:
Summary: Great book! Now where do I begin...
Review: If the following describe you (as I hope it does me), then THIS IS THE BOOK FOR YOU:

-You crave careful analysis of factual premises and will respect the conclusions therefrom, whether you held such conclusions to start with and even if you're not ultimately convinced.

-You respect a writer whose method of argument is rational dissection of the facts, who doesn't rely on the omission or dismissal of relevant information to help make his or her case, and even feels obliged to bring up available information that may even partially undercut his case.

-You wish more political commentators would be willing to present opposing viewpoints fairly, explaining these points exactly as their opponents would themselves explain them, without resorting to hyperbole or mischaracterization to help their own case.

-You wish more political pundits would take the care to handle their opponent's arguments and statements logically and point-by-point without any purely rhetorical or emotional dismissal of their opponent's position that has nothing do with the underlying logic of that position.

If you, like me, believe that this is the way to understand "Truth" and not simply confirm one's own poltical beliefs and biases, then you will find this book IMMENSELY SATISFYING and ALL TOO RARE. For that alone, I believe this book merits 5 stars, as sadly the above-mentioned criteria are missing from nearly every book written about Bush or his recent predecessors by those on either the left or the right.

I suspect this careful and dispassionate analysis derives from Singer's academic background. Perhaps we need more real academics to come down from the ivory tower and share their ideas with the rest of us. This is a true "thinking man's" book.

My only caveat, however, that if you have any sort of emotional attachment to Bush the Man rather than mere political support for Bush the President, you will find Singer's cold, calculating analysis of his psyche a little hard to take. Also, if you are more of a political ideologue than a careful rationalist-pragmatist, you will probably not benefit from this book.

Rating:
Summary: A fair and damning review of our current Head of State
Review: If you belive that this country and the world would be a much better place if people took the time to think through their opinions and try to maintain consistent ethical beliefs then this book is for you. Singer is a revolutionary philosopher not because he espouses any new ethical theories but rather for the thorough manner he extrapolates innteresting moral conclusions from basic ethical principles. In this book he cuts through any and all political mudslinging and spin, leaving only the facts and reason as a guide. Not only is Singer systematicaly logical in his condemnation of the President he is also not without humility. When Bush deserves credit, he gets it (like his action towards AIDS treatment in Africa.) Singer seeems to have no agenda toward the President when the book begins. No axe to grind. Because of his persistent fairness Singer has written the Presidents most damning and justified condemnation. Critics might call Singer simplistic, deconstructing complex moral questions into simple black and white principals. This criticism is not in itself substancial unless someone could cite a specific example of incorrect ethical reasoning on the part of Mr. Singer. They would be hard pressed to do so. Critics be warned, Singer is no simpleton. His simple writing style is a deliberate choice on his part to make the arguments as clear and consise as possible. He understands that tax policy is a complicated and thorny issue but he avoids the numerous tangents that could arise from this issue and sticks to his subject, the ethical consistency of GW. Because of his logical and forceful arguments Singer has shown more conclusively,and with much less bile, that our President is very, very, ethically troubled.

Rating:
Summary: Useful study of Bush's rhetoric
Review: In this book, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, studies the ethics of President George W. Bush. More than any other President, Bush justifies his policies in terms of the fight of good against evil.

In Part 1, Singer contrasts Bush's rhetoric of opportunity with the reality of class. Bush's faith-based politics cover class-based economic policies. He claims to uphold a culture of life, while freely using the death penalty, even for mentally retarded prisoners. He opposes stem cell research, despite its contribution to prolonging life. He boasts that the USA is the freest nation on earth, despite the evidence.

In Part 2, Singer looks at Bush's international role. Claiming to uphold free trade and generous aid, Bush spends more on subsidising 25,000 US cotton growers than he provides in aid to Africa.

After 9/11, he stretched his aim from attacking Al Qa'ida to toppling the Taliban regime. Singer shows how the attack on Afghanistan was not just, because Bush rejected negotiations, so the war was not the last resort that it should have been. Nor was the war for a just cause, because it went beyond what was necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks. And he allows US forces to use interrogation methods that the State Department calls torture when other governments use them.

The war against Iraq was a diversion from the just war against Al Qa'ida, and has only increased the threat of terrorism. Pax Americana, like the old Pax Britannica, is just an endless series of imperial wars, strategically and morally wrong.

In sum, Singer shows how Bush (like his lackey Blair) uses value-talk to claim that he is moral, despite all the evidence. When his policies fail to produce the good results he predicted, he blames other, `evil', people. The worse the consequences, the more moral the rhetoric.

Finally, we should recognise that Bush's lies and confusions consistently serve the interests of the US ruling class. These interests conflict with the interests of workers everywhere, and with America's real interests, the interests of American workers, the vast majority of the American people.





Rating:
Summary: Insightful, substantially challenges Bush's assertions
Review: Insightful, substantially challenges Bush's assertions. On a number of central issues of President Bush based upon his statements and priorities, the author basically tears President Bush into shreds -- however in a polite manner.

Rating:
Summary: A different Christian perspective of Bush's morality
Review: It is perplexing as a committed Christian to view the religious-right's fervent support for one whose actions speak louder than words, but not in the direction that one would expect. A desire to protect the sanctity of life and marriage, appears to have been severely misplaced in electoral support for an administration which increasingly appears dangerously close in ideology to some of the despotic regimes of other nations in the recent past.

I have given Singer's book five stars because he clearly and calmly exposes some of the hypocrisy of George W Bush and his administration with simple examples. In detailing a variety of issues he shows where the moral pronouncements of Bush and the subsequent policies of his administration are worryingly contradictory. One could argue that something more sinister is actually afoot here, and several social commentators have suggested, with convincing evidence, that the current administration has successfully implemented Straussian ideology in its use of religion to manipulate the masses to bring it to power. It is fair to suggest that the fairly recent rise of the Christian heresy of dominionism in perhaps all of the right-wing evangelical circles has had much to do with this.

Some have argued that this scenario is evidence of a lying, conniving Bush, others have been more charitable in suggesting a Bush who is a mere puppet mouthpiece for the neo-conservatives. Either way, from a moral point of view, Bush appears to be ominously selective in his desire to uphold a semblance of Biblical morality - if that is indeed his intended goal.

Singer documents Bush's statements regarding the sanctity of life with regard to abortions. He then points out that Bush, whilst governor of Texas, signed the death warrant for a jailed man with the mental age of a seven year old. Bush and his administration appear to sanction the bombing of civilian villages in Afghanistan with impunity. In this latter case one could suggest that a single incident might fairly be described as a grave mistake, but it is clearly evident that this is a continuing policy initiative - perhaps, as has been suggested by some, designed to bomb the population into submission. Civilians in Afghanistan have been bombed on many occasions with the full knowledge of the U.S. military, and hence the administration, and this has been reported in much of the foreign press.

Recent events further support Singer's conclusions that Bush is not following through on uttured ethical intentions: the systematic destruction of Fallujah including the deliberate bombing of medical stores, the shooting of civilians and journalists by American troops has all been documented and can be read about by those who choose to do so. Indeed, CNN's Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan, recently let slip at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he believed that the U.S. forces had deliberately targeted some journalists in Iraq.

There is clear evidence of systematic and continuing torture by the U.S. in both Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. It recently came to light that a 15 year old Canadian captured in Afghanistan had been taken to Guantanamo Bay and tortured by the U.S. military. Is this part of Bush's sanctity of life? Holding people without trial, torturing and killing and then attempting to cover up the atrocities - where is the sanctity of life here? It might well be considered injudicious by some for a President to pursue policies that directly contradict the edicts of the God whom he suggests chose him for the purpose.

Engaging in preemptive wars in the name of the God who taught that, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God," might be seen as daring by some. Lying in order to persuade the population to go along with this agenda, whilst claiming to be ordained for the task by the God, of whom the Bible states, "...Therefore the proud will not be allowed to stand in your presence, for you hate all who do evil. You will destroy those who tell lies. The Lord detests murderers and deceivers..." and presumably those who sanction such things, might raise some eyebrows.

Bush makes much of his conversion to Christianity beginning, apparently, with a walk on the beach in Maine with Billy Graham. It is not enough to make a declaration of faith - one's subsequent actions need to demonstrate that this faith has clearly taken root and is now the centre-piece at the heart of the individual. So far there is little to persuade us that this has indeed happened with George W, since he clearly contradicts not merely his own stated ethical aims, but also those of the God whom he claims to follow. It might be suggested to Billy to have a word in George's ear, as the initial evangelistic message appears to have been distorted somewhere between the 'hearing' and the 'understanding'.

One critic below states that, "Singer has no understanding of Christianity..." One might argue that he at least has something in common with George Bush.

Another critic suggests examining the ethics of Bill Clinton. Why not have a look at the ethics of Jimmy Carter. Here is a man who has always professed a strong faith in God through Biblical Christianity. He has gone about his business in a Biblical way and did not try to impose his morality on an unwilling public. He upheld the Supreme Court ruling of the USA as the law of the land, even though he personally believed that Jesus would never favour abortion.

In concluding that Singer has admirably demonstrated many of the gaping holes in the ethics of George W. Bush, one does not necessarily have to agree with Singer's concept of ethics from his own standpoint. I do not agree with much of Singer's personal moral views, but I do hold that he has done an admirable job of disabusing us of any inclination that we might have to regard the Bush administration's perceived morality as anything other than a facade which hides a deeply sinister, ulterior intent.

Rating:
Summary: Taking Bush at his word
Review: No other politician in modern history has invoked morality as justification for ethically questionable actions more then the current President of the United States. I suspect most of us tend either to presuppose the truth of his alleged Christian stand-point or reject his black-and-white rhetoric as an extreme over-simplification. Either way, Bush frequently escapes critical examination of his language and the analysis of his action within the context of his incessent talk of good and evil.

At long last, one of the world's leading figures in ethics, Peter Singer, presumes to take Bush at his word. Starting with Bush's claims to value a free and equal society, Singer examines tax cuts, environmental records, global politics, stem-cell research, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and more besides. It is not comprehensive, but it is the closest thing we have. Singer is exhaustive in his efforts to find a way in which Bush could be considered ethical, often giving far more then is deserved, and ultimately concludes that there is good argument for believing Bush's actions do not live up to the promises he made and continues to make. In light of Singer's work, it is hard to argue that Bush could be considered a morally just president; even a man of his word.

In his speeches and interviews, Bush has pushed his ethics to the forefront of his administration. Many voted for him based on his apparent Christian ethic, after Clinton was perceived to lower the tone. Singer demonstrates that in contrast to Clinton, Bush's actions have been far more costly and far more difficult to justify. One cannot help but concur with Singer that Bush is a man who has made clear the criteria for judging his actions; that being the moral cause he invokes whenever he talks about 'evil' etc. By that criteria, Bush is at best dubious and at worst deceitful.

I am happy to recommend this book to anyone seeking an intelligent, detailed look at the actions of a President who claims to be 'good' but fails to act accordingly.

Rating:
Summary: Be aware as rhetoric collides with reality
Review: Peter Singer's "The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush" is an unabashedly anti-Bush polemic, the unavoidable consequence of Mr. Singer's intellectual truth-telling regarding the many dichotomies apparent in Bush's governance to date. Mr. Singer brings his philosopher's acumen and tools to this examination of Bush's impact, both at home and abroad.

The fact is that, across the policy board, Bush's persona as a squeaky-clean defender of "good" in the face of "evil" actually conceals a far darker Hobbesian world view, one made murkier yet by discordant and often-conflicting ethics at the core. A simplest case in point regarding the "reverence for life" in loudly pro-life Bush: his enthusiastic adoption of capital punishment even though its value as a crime deterrent has been refuted for decades. On and on the conflicts tumble out in this calm, reasoned telling of the actions and the rhetoric.

The tragedy is that these are not Bush's ideas and attitudes at all, but rather the many neoconservative and "Straussian" handlers who have funded and empowered Bush to their radical far-right agenda. Mose revealing is the neoconservative sourcing for their arrogance: Leo Strauss, whose mid-twentieth century philosophical views state that "there is one kind of truth for the masses, and another for the philosophers -- that is , for those in the know." Curiously, for this overtly Christian president who frowns at spoken "damns" in cabinet meetings, the Straussian truth is that "the existence of God is, at best, unprovable in any rational, scientific view of the world. But this truth should not be revealed to the masses, because religion breeds deference to the ruling classes...." Odd that it sounds like an exact echo of the old Marxist saw about "religion being the opiate of the masses."

Presumably, few Bush supporters would care to look too carefully at the hodge-podge of morality that finally does equate to the sort of moral relativism that Bush says is our nation's modern bane. Mr. Singer's rational dissection of Bush's rhetoric and "Christian heart" should be on the national required reading list.

Rating:
Summary: Moral Seriousness Replaces Irony
Review: Reading philosophy requires that one master a form of "suspense"; the suspense of judgement.

The ersatz for this suspense is ignorance masquerading as irony. Since the American educational system fails its main mission, American college students often learn an ersatz for cultivation: not even attempting a moral or intellectual judgement. From their irony, which often generates Fundamentalist enthusiasm as its reverse without pausing to visit nuance and depth on the way, the Bush spinmeisters have manufactured a near-majority.

Reading Singer, on the other hand, requires that one follow long chains of reasoning, in situations where, at times, Singer hasn't committed himself to a view. Then, one is required to commit oneself without irony and with moral seriousness to a view.

Singer is able to use the evidence to show that even if the President is well-intentioned he fails to achieve his goals. No Child Left Behind becomes quite a lot of children left behind, and, of course, the crusade in Iraq has resulted in a replication of the conditions of Saddam's jails.

Singer concludes that Bush stopped developing morally at the stage where a moral system consists in a set of commands.

It's possible that like many men, Bush fears the chaos implicit in the very idea that morality can't be reduced to copybook maxims. The conclusion often drawn from this is nihilism.

Of course, as regards Iraq, Bush (and Tony Blair) needed only to listen past their circle of advisers. The large minority in the USA of ordinary people and a majority of the people world wide advised Bush and Blair that the war was wrong.

Bush's morality is ultimately a narrative and the truth and falsity of his acts can only be understood in a literary fashion. Singer's chains of reasoning are at best useful in allowing the passionate to marshal their arguments.

Only a novelist would link Bush's ability to laugh at a death row inmate when governor of Texas, and the culture of bullying and sexual violence (against women, gays and low-dominance males) which both Bush administrations managed to create, and what's happened at Abu Ghraib, but the link is real.

Singer, in a reasoned minimal judgement of Bush, engages in no phillipics and no rhetoric about the "evilduuers" Bush and Co. Singer rather charitably concludes that Bush has failed to grow up.

But only a novelistic apprehension of Bush's life would understand that there is a link between his sexual and drug misadventures of the 1970s (a time in which he appears to have used his position as the Fortunate Son to sexually humiliate others), his mockery of reformed Death Row inmates, and what happened, on what was his watch, at Abu Ghraib.

The actual guards at Abu Ghraib got the message. It's O.K. to violate other people at a deep level. It's even fun. And, since we're "good" old boys, what we do can always be justified.

This obscenity needs to be confronted quietly and remorselessly and this is what Peter Singer has done.

In an essay, "Fascism as the Nightmare of Childhood", midcentury "critical theorist" Adorno asks what it would be like if the terrors of the sensitive, *haute* bourgeois child came to
pass in adulthood.

Adorno describes a nightmare world in which the adults become children, that is arrested in their moral development, and repair to the beer hall of mittelEurope with Fortunate Sons, students identified as comers, to plot the degringolade of cultivation, moral seriousness, and privacy itself. Adorno narrates this as necessarily a regression, and a withheld promise of enlightenment.

In a similar passage written in the same epoch, Eric Maria Remarque asks what happened to the fathers of the generation that sent the men to the trenches of WWI, what had happened to the world of enlightenment and progress.

It might be said that it's over the top (to continue the trench warfare of metaphor) to compare the slaughter of The Somme to failing to give prisoners clothes, or forcing them to jerk off.
The problem with this objection is twofold. The first problem is that apart from the Nazis and the Japanese, the combatants of both wars did not use sexual humiliation of detainees for the very good reason that it made no military, or military intelligence, sense. The second problem is that evil seems to be additive.

That is, finding new and innovative ways to degrade the human person, even if nonlethal, place the perpetrators, whether they will it or not, in the same league tables as the Nazis.

They are compared to Nazis, whether they will it or not. Extant Nazis applaud them and throw flowers. And, future historians, viewing things in a manner closer to sub specie aeternitatis, put them in the same class, in a chapter headed "man's inhumanity, to man, from 1900 to 2100 A.D."

This is indeed the world-historical sniff test, a literary sniff test, but one curiously precise. It's a test that seems to come from a deep place, the place beyond passion where Singer resides.

Adorno, of course, did not narrate this reversion as mere amnesia. As a dialectician he knew that the reversion would contain Enlightenment in such a way as to both make it more terrifying, and to make the traditional tools ineffectual.

Therefore to say that Singer is merely using the quiet voice of "reason" to counter a genuine moral decline is off key, in part because neoconservatism has a knack for making one ashamed of "reason" when "reason" is clearly a club.

In fact, and as Singer's work demonstrates, the Bush administration is a call to creation, not "reason". From its violation of international law, we need to create enforceable international laws such that when US army officers, of flag rank, get off the plane at SFO, they aren't spit upon, but are met instead by US Marshals, deputized by The Hague to detain them for clear violations of the rights of man and citizen.

Rating:
Summary: "Restore honor and integrity to the oval office?
Review: Singer approaches Bush through Bush's own words and actions. Are Bush's professed ethics and morals in evidence in his actions? No! Singer reviews many areas in which Bush has claimed moral high ground. In every one of them Bush claims one thing and delivers another. The only moral high ground for Bush is the special interest. Don't just accuse me of bias, read the evidence. Singer's list of examples is stagering.