In Powerdown Heinburg Lets the Bush Administration Have It

In Power Down, Richard Heinberg powerfully criticizes the Bush administration for many reasons, including their willingness to engage in resource wars. His frank talk about the administration will take many readers aback, partly because there is so little direct criticism of the administration in the mainstream media. This was made all the more clear to me when I was watching a 'town-meeting' style of discussion with Tony Blair on BBC. A number of audience members asked incredibly open and critical questions, mainly about Iraq, that Bush would have never been allowed to have been asked. Our president has not had to answer any difficult questions since he took office because his puppeteers keep him sheltered from unscripted interviews and press conferences. Some of the White House press corps have actually had their credentials revoked for asking blunt questions. We live in a society where overt criticism of Bush is linked to being unpatriotic and where people feel an unnatural drive to display their patriotism in the form of American flags and 'support our troops' ribbons wherever they can. This movement of display your 'patriotism' has reached ridiculous levels. Reading Heinberg's blunt assessment of the Bush administration and neo-conservatives was refreshing.Before going into the long list of complaints Heinberg has for the Bush administration I would like to look at the roots of neo-conservatism, of which much of the administration follows. Neo-conservatism is the political theory of Leo Strauss who believed in some very scary ideas that sound borderline fascist. According to Strauss a leader "must perpetually deceive those being ruled" and that he is not accountable to any higher moral power, only "to the right of the superior to rule the inferior". In addition religion is looked at as the force that holds society together and a tool for the leader to use against the common folk. Secularism is looked down upon by neo-cons because it "leads to critical thinking and dissent". Finally, Strauss believed that to keep a political system stable it must be united against an external threat and if one is not available one should be made up (Heinberg 68). These are all scary ideas that make government sound like controlling, evil institution, however, many of Strauss's ideas can be seen in the current administration's actions.

The administration deceived the public on the Iraq War, including false reasons for invading and a campaign to link Sadaam to 9/11. Second, Bush ignored the wishes of a higher power (the UN) in his quest to secure the oil assets of Iraq. Bush has also used religion to emphasize his moral virtues and condemn secular society for being devoid of morals. His administration has managed to connect liberalism to secularism and has constantly attacked liberal's morals with dumbed down catch phrases like "culture of life", through all this he has managed to turn liberal into a negative word. Last of all Bush has secured his position as leader by uniting the U.S. against the external threat of terrorism. Before last years election Dick Cheney even went so far as to say it might not be safe to let a Democrat win because he wouldn't be equipped to deal with terrorism. The implications of his words are that the current administration knows best and it may not be safe to let Americans decide who should be in office. These incidents sound like something out of the novel 1984 and are truly scary for the future of America.

A serious issue Heinberg has with the Bush administration is the people he has chosen to surround himself with. Many come from questionable legal backgrounds and are aligned with certain industries creating a clear conflict of interest. For example, Elliot Abrams was convicted of lying to Congress over the Iran-Contra scandal and then was appointed as the National Security Council Special Advisor on Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations. How could a man who perjured himself and traded guns to revolutionaries be appointed to such a prominent position? It seems almost criminal, yet, Abrams is one of many examples of this in the Bush administration. One of the most startling examples to me is John Negroponte who has been charged with covering up political killings and information regarding the CIA and military's involvement with the disappearances of civilians. Despite this disturbing background he is now the US ambassador to the UN. In addition, countless members of Bush's cabinet including himself and Dick Cheney are former oil executives. To allow our countries energy policy to be dictated by these people who have shown that they put their own interests above all others is a recipe for disaster. How can we expect a bunch of oil-men to create a forward-thinking energy policy. My mother always told me you could tell a lot about someone based on who they choose to surround themselves with.

The attack on civil liberties under the guise of protecting our citizens from terrorism is another ugly aspect of the Bush administration. The constitution is designed to spread out power among the three branches of government so they keep each other in check. Yet we have seen the Bush administration make a number of Executive Orders and pass laws such as the Patriot Act which was pushed through Congress because no politician wanted to look unpatriotic after 9/11. The Patriot Act has given the FBI broad search and surveillance power and has been under fire for invasion of privacy issues (74). The government has also detained hundreds of foreigners without charging them or allowing them proper representation.

The direction this country is headed in is one of a more intrusive government who puts the rights of corporations above those of citizens. It is unfortunate because Bush had a great chance to take this country in a positive direction after 9/11. He has squandered the outpouring of international goodwill and the chance to move America into a safer future.