Conservatives Without Conscience

As Bush proceeds with his second term, we have had some six years to observe him. It is abundantly clear that he is a mental lightweight with a strong right-wing authoritarian personality, with some social dominance tendencies as well. Bush’s leading authorities are “his gut,” his God, and his vice president. Cheney, it appears, knows how to manipulate the president like a puppet, and handles his oversized ego by making him believe ideas or decisions are his own when, in fact, they are Cheney’s. While Bush does not appear to be a Double High, the vice president is a classic Double High, including—among other things—by his “go fuck yourself” dismissal of those with whom he disagrees.[79] Cheney is the mind of this presidency, with Bush its salesman. Bush simply does not have the mental facility or inclination for serious critical analysis of the policies he is being pushed to adopt.

Bush and Cheney saw 9/11 as an excuse to indulge their natural authoritarian and conservative instincts. In so doing, they have brought out the worst in conservatism: They have justified and rationalized their increasing use of authoritarian tactics in the name of fighting terrorism. Without terrorism, George W. Bush would have likely been a one-term president; with terrorism as a raison d’être, Bush and Cheney’s authoritarianism has not been questioned seriously enough.

Many of the activities carried out as a result of Bush and Cheney’s authoritarianism have been labeled “radical.”[*] A partial list of synonyms for “radical” includes “extremist,” “fanatical,” “far-out,” “immoderate,” “intransigent,” “militant,” “nihilistic,” “revolutionary,” “uncompromising,” and even “lawless.”[80] Radicals are those “favoring or effecting extreme or revolutionary changes”; those “favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms”; persons “who hold or follow strong convictions or extreme principles; extremists”; and persons “who advocate fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.”[81] The mainstream foreign press was the first to take note of the fact that the Bush administration was not in the least following a conservative agenda. For example, the Australian (November 2, 2004) observed that American “conservatives have become radicals”; the Financial Times of London (November 22, 2004) referred to “Republican radicals” being eager for more tax cuts; and the Guardian (January 23, 2005) described the Bush and Cheney administration as “one of the most radical Republican governments in recent American history.” American newspapers soon took the same viewpoint. A Boston Globe editorial (May 21, 2005) called Utah’s senator Orrin Hatch “a well-known Republican radical,” and the San Francisco Chronicle (May 20, 2005) referred to “radical Republicans.” There have been many such descriptions of today’s Republicans, but the source of their radicalism has been ignored. All of the terms used to define radicalism also accurately describe the actions of authoritarians. Just as the mainstream American news media was slow to attach the term “radical” to describe the current Republican administration and Congress, the media seems disinclined to describe the conduct underlying this radicalism as authoritarian.

However, journalist-turned-blogger Joshua Marshall has a remarkable ability to be among the first to spot developments in Washington, as he did in identifying the authoritarianism of the Bush administration. In analyzing a speech by Al Gore on January 16, 2006,[82] addressing the Bush administration’s remarkable abuses of power, Marshall wrote, “The point Gore makes in his speech that I think is most key is the connection between authoritarianism, official secrecy and incompetence. The president’s critics are always accusing him of law-breaking or unconstitutional acts and then also berating the incompetence of his governance. And it’s often treated as, well…he’s power-hungry and incompetent to boot! Imagine that! The point though is that they are directly connected. Authoritarianism and secrecy breed incompetence; the two feed on each other. It’s a vicious cycle. Governments with authoritarian tendencies point to what is in fact their own incompetence as the rationale for giving them yet more power”[83] (italics Marshall’s).