Understanding George W. Bush

George W. Bush says he supports democracy. We are in Iraq now to "spread democracy." Yet Bush has made a habit of refusing to recognize other democratically elected governments. How can we explain this apparent contradiction?

What Bush appears to mean, when he says he supports democracy, is that he wishes to see his choice of leaders gain power through a process that bears a superficial resemblance to a democratic election. The fact that Bush's choice of leaders is not the people's choice doesn't seem to matter to Bush. He is behaving, increasingly, like a man who can't see the forest for the trees. He is so actively involved in all things superficial that he is, seemingly, incapable of recognizing substance. The concept of democracy is strong in his heart and mind, but the ability to comprehend its practical meaning is apparently beyond him. If it were not, he would have understood from the start that forced democracy is an oxymoron. I suppose this is a hazard of being raised in a bubble.

Now, the Bush administration is telling us that the wiretapping program Bush didn't want to explain to FISA is only being used to spy on "known suspects." I simply must ask: What's a "known suspect?" Has anybody asked Bush or Gonzales or Cheney to define that term? I'll tell you what I think it is: a known suspect is somebody they know they are suspicious of.

If you think I'm being sarcastic, think again. We already have all the evidence we need to prove that Bush's definition of democracy is not in the dictionary; and he has repeatedly demonstrated a failure to deal with reality, in favor of propagandizing his ideological fantasies (I refer to Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Drug Program, the budget). Somebody should start asking him to define his terms.

In fact, I have a long list of words Bush uses a little too loosely. Let's start with "enemy." Since we've already been told that whoever is not with him is against him, it appears that Bush believes that anybody who isn't 100% supportive of every one of his efforts is his "enemy." That would put anti-war activists in the enemy camp; along with environmentalists, abortion rights activists, animal rights activists, etc. Perhaps this explains why we're hearing reports about wiretapping of anti-war activists, environmentalists, abortion rights activists and animal rights groups.

We also know Bush is a big fan of guilt by association. If we put these two ideas together, "if you're not with us you're against us" and "if you're against us, you're with the enemy--Al Qaeda" the next logical conclusion is: Anybody who voices any dissent regarding any program Bush wants to promote is an enemy of the administration and an ally of Al Qaeda.

We'll then. Perhaps that's how members of the administration can justify telling the world that they are merely working to protect the United States from the enemy. It would also explain why they feel compelled to monitor peace activists and other socially conscious groups that aim to protect the planet from corporate abuse and environmental disaster. It's all very logical. It's also completely delusional.

The delusion is a little harder to comprehend than the logic, so here's a breakdown:

Bush's corporate base and the elite group of men running his administration view any checks on corporate power as unconstitutional. Their true God is the marketplace; therefore, any challenge to their ability to manipulate and profit from market conditions is, from their frighteningly narrow perspective, a sacrilege. They believe it is their right to take as much as they can and give as little as possible. What they can take depends on the law, not any sense of social conscience or morality. Hence, the laws must be written to give the maximum freedom to corporate interests. (Wow, this is easier than I thought--once you agree to a delusional set of basic premises, there is no limit to what you can justify!) What's more, this right to corporate power is the sort of right they will fight to defend to the death--even if that means sending somebody else's kids to war.

Bottom line: if they can get their fat hands on it, they own it. It's the imperialist mentality our founding fathers fought to escape. (It's a strange twist of fate, don't you think, that King George III was their nemesis and President George, the third, is ours?)