October 11, 2005
Lust for Power--2
What makes Bush and his cronies evil is their lust for power. That's because power, to be felt, needs to cause injury or harm to someone.
"Max und Moritz" tricked their teacher
The lust for power is perhaps most evident in their approach to the law. Instead of looking upon the law as an instrument of social harmony and compromise, the Bush cronies, from Rove to Roberts and Miers, count on the law to coerce and restrict individual freedom and autonomy, to deny human rights, and to strictly limit the individual rights identified in the Constitution.
Evidence for this attitude can be found both in the Roberts ruling to permit the torture and physical abuse of captives, who happen not to be American citizens, and in Bush's obvious delight in the prospect of incinerating suspected terrorists with "hellfire" missiles. Indeed, the definition of almost any destructive force, natural or man-made, as an opportunity, is entirely consistent with the belief that punishment is good.
And it's not inconsistent with a proclaimed commitment to Christianity either. That's because, although Jesus Christ proclaimed a gospel of love to all mankind, man continues to be born in a sinful state. That is, man retains a sense of autonomy, of individual interest and intrinsic worth. And that's not good. Indeed, whatever an individual does of his own volition is bad. Because good is doing what someone else demands. Obedience, regardless of the actual consequence of any particular act, is what makes it good.
Which is why it's important for Bush to assert that he's just carrying out God's orders. It doesn't matter how many people get maimed or injured or killed. Because he's doing the will of God, being obedient, his behavior is good. What looks like an upside-down world actually isn't, if you start with the right prejudice.
"Prejudice" is the appropriate term, even though to most people it means a negative attitude towards some thing or person that has no basis in fact. But, in actuality, prejudice is just a judgement that one makes BEFORE any factual evidence comes in, usually as the result of an inherited belief. And that's exactly what informs the thinking of these lustful people--a belief that man is born evil (selfish) and must be forced and restrained by the law to do what he should (obey others).
That this prejudice about evil human nature meshes so nicely with the impulses of those who wish to control him is not accidental. In fact, the impulse to control others probably came first and the rationalization to justify doing what one would not want done to oneself came later.
Obviously, this perspective is not unique to Bush and his cronies. In western societies it's been around as long as Plato. That it conflicts with what western religions teach can be easily dismissed with the explanation that the goodness of man is a goal (often not achieved until he's dead) not a fact. And therefore punishment is not only appropriate but deserved.
It is this final rationalization--that the injury and harm inflicted on others in the interest of demonstrating power is actually deserved by the victims--which serves to rule out any sense of guilt that might inhibit such behavior. Indeed, the goodness of the awful deeds is derived not just from obedience but from obligation--the obligation to mete out punishment to those who deserve it. Which, since "everybody's guilty of something," is virtually without limits.
When you come right down to it, the lust for power is a good thing. People are bad and need to be punished and somebody's got to do it. So the people who wield the power to injure are performing a valuable service, even as they get their jollies observing other people's pain and distress. (Which may actually explain an apparent inability by those in power to respond to a natural catastrophe like Katrina expeditiously--first the distress had to be adequately tasted and savored so the responding power could be maximized). Those who are saved simply get to suffer less.
If Bush and his cronies were simply interested in accumulating wealth, we'd be a lot better off. Because, however much wealth is created, it has a limit. Not to mention that most people can actually manage quite well without it. The amount of injury that can be inflicted on other people, including those that aren't even born yet, is vitually unlimited. Until, of course, the lust for power leads to the unleashing of weapons that can exterminate all humans and most other living things. We used to worry about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of evil people. What shall we do to protect ourselves against people who consider it good to do others harm?
Posted by Hannah at October 11, 2005 05:45 AM