PDA

View Full Version : I fault this president - E. L. Doctorow


Sonnet
09-24-2004, 11:35 AM
I fault this president
E. L. Doctorow

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our twenty-one year olds who wanted to be what they could be.

On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMDs he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousand dead young men and women who wanted be what they could be. They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and father or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life.... they come to his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing --- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills --- it is amazing for how many people in this country this President does not feel. But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the safety regulations for coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a- half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class. And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over he world most of the time. But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than preemptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble. Finally the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as the United Sates of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

Farren
09-24-2004, 03:10 PM
Great essay. Too bad some people have their heads so far up their asses they can't see that the very values they ascribe to the man (sincerity, compassion and a belief in doing the right thing) are the qualities he so evidently lacks. He's the exact opposite of the messianic figure most of his supporters think he is.

That's not just limited to Americans (although there are far fewer Bush supporters outside of the US than in it). My sister thinks he's sincere and guided by God. She's a nice person, but she's completely clueless about international affairs and she's a fundamentalist.

godfry n. glad
09-24-2004, 04:51 PM
I think he's a bonefide sociopath.

I also think he is an unconstitutional president. His administration is a constitutional crisis in process for the United States, as he is the product of a judicial coup. We, the United States, as a nation, teeter on the edge of becoming an undisguised plutocracy and Dumbya is the point man for those who would willingly take us there.
Dumbya has wiped his shitty ass with the Constitution.

I'm not all that assured by Kerry, either. He strikes me as naught but a well-disguised plutocrat....a "half a loaf" man. I can only hope that, if elected, he'll at least nod submissively in the direction of the Constitution and appoint somebody who is not a microcephalic zealot like Asscrap to be Attorney General.

I'd become a Canadian, but Canada won't have me.

godfry

godfry n. glad
09-24-2004, 06:58 PM
Start your day with a positive feeling...

1. Open a new file in your computer.

2. Name it "George W. Bush."

3. Send it to the trash.

4. Empty the trash.

5. Your computer will ask you, "do you really want to get rid of George W. Bush?"

6. Answer calmly, "yes," and press the mouse button firmly.

7. Feel better?

Dlanod
09-24-2004, 07:11 PM
Start your day with a positive feeling...

1. Open a new file in your computer.

2. Name it "George W. Bush."

3. Send it to the trash.

4. Empty the trash.

5. Your computer will ask you, "do you really want to get rid of George W. Bush?"

6. Answer calmly, "yes," and press the mouse button firmly.

7. Feel better?

Thanks! This is a great stress reliever. Hopefully we can all do this for real on November 2nd.

- Donald

Socratoad
09-24-2004, 10:20 PM
I hope that I get this right as I am not quite familiar with the post formats at the board.

Every once in a long time there comes along a essay or thought piece that so gets me right where I live that I immediately go into my I-wish-I-had-written-that mode. E.L. Doctorow's essay is just such an essay. There seems little reason for me to say more regarding my views of the present situation; Doctorow has said it for me.

Thank you so very much for putting this essay before my eyes.

Clutch Munny
09-25-2004, 04:05 PM
Great essay. Too bad some people have their heads so far up their asses they can't see that the very values they ascribe to the man (sincerity, compassion and a belief in doing the right thing) are the qualities he so evidently lacks.


Indeed. (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/May2004/DoctorowHofstra052404.htm)


E.L. Doctorow, one of the most celebrated writers in America, was nearly booed off the stage at Hofstra University Sunday when he gave a commencement address lambasting President George W. Bush and effectively calling him a liar.

Booing that came mainly from the crowd in the stands became so intense that Doctorow stopped speaking at one point, showing no emotion as he stood silently and listened to the jeers. Hofstra President Stuart Rabinowitz intervened, and called on the audience to allow him to finish. He did, although some booing persisted.

Doctorow, who spent virtually all of his 20-minute address in Hempstead criticizing Bush, told the crowd that like himself the president is a storyteller. But "sadly they are not good stories this president tells," he said. "They are not good stories because they are not true." That line provoked the first boos, along with scattered cheers.

"...But anyway we went off to war on the basis of these stories."

Those lines provoked an outburst of boos so loud the "Ragtime" author stopped the speech. Rabinowitz approached the podium and called for calm. "We value open discussion and debate," he said. "For the sake of your graduates, please let him finish."

...

Many parents and relatives of the more than 1,300 undergraduates were livid over the address, saying afterward that a college graduation was not the place for a political speech. "If this would have happened in Florida, we would have taken him out" of the stadium, said Frank Mallafre, who traveled from Miami for his granddaughter's graduation.

trendkill
09-28-2004, 11:40 AM
I didn't like it. It was well-written, but it stated as facts things about the president we can't really know for certain, i.e. what he feels or doesn't feel in his heart. I don't think George W. Bush cares about the troops or the poor either (in fact, no matter how many times I hear it, I'm always amazed when people say that they trust him personally and think he has integrity), but in my opinion, the way to figure out what's going on in someone's brain is to ask him, not to dowse his mental sins like some overconfident Calvinist. We've probably all been guilty of this at some point or another, but I sure don't appreciate when it's done to me. That's what I kept thinking whenever the author launched into another grandiose paragraph detailing Bush's deepest feelings or lack thereof.

Also, I disagreed with the idea that the Iraq war is a fundamental departure for US foreign policy, which signaled its "morphing into a rogue nation". The difference between Iraq and the other imperialistic wars we've fought is mainly a PR difference. It was more blatant than the US's previous MO. More hamfisted, but not so much more reprehensible. We have a history of grooming dictators and then declaring them evil and snuffing them out when they become difficult to control. Very little "morphing" was required to get us into shape for another unprovoked regime change.

The disappointing thing was that when the real shape of things was revealed, half of America still didn't care. I suppose in a way this means I have something to thank this administration for. One more troublesome illusion shattered, one more sordid truth exposed.

Clutch Munny
09-28-2004, 03:52 PM
I didn't like it. It was well-written, but it stated as facts things about the president we can't really know for certain, i.e. what he feels or doesn't feel in his heart. I don't think George W. Bush cares about the troops or the poor either (in fact, no matter how many times I hear it, I'm always amazed when people say that they trust him personally and think he has integrity), but in my opinion, the way to figure out what's going on in someone's brain is to ask him, not to dowse his mental sins like some overconfident Calvinist.


I didn't much care for this either, but only because the prose was a bit purple for my tastes.

ELD does, after all, try to link what Bush thinks to his observable actions. This is virtually the only access we ever get to someone's mental states, and it is very often completely sufficient. "Did you really feel like you needed to score?" is superfluous, after we watch a running back take a series of punishing hits but still claw his way in for a touchdown.

So, e.g., when Bush, in an interview with Talk Magazine, puts on a fake high-pitched voice and pretends to be Karla Faye Tucker on death row ("'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me,' " ), it is mental dowsing of no unwarranted sort to conclude that he tends towards shallow lack of empathy. Especially when this is part of a pattern of behaviour, of the kind to which ELD is alluding.

trendkill
09-28-2004, 05:43 PM
The Karla Faye Tucker thing is the most obvious evidence that Bush has a serious compassion deficit, I've cited it in the past many times. But Doctorow didn't cite it and make points directly related to it, instead he went into a lot of detail about what Bush does and doesn't feel with relatively little backup. Mostly based on the fact that Bush behaves personably and jocularly at public functions. Reading back over it, it's hard to pick out any justification for the detailed accusations, actually, with the possible exception of the joke about the lack of WMD in Iraq.

Clutch Munny
09-28-2004, 08:01 PM
<shrug>

It depends, I suppose, on whether you think ELD is assuming his readers are familiar with the basic acts of governance, and omissions of acts, by GWB. Still, he also contrasts the lack of overt sympathy for families of dead soldiers with the overt actions taken to enrich the already fabulously rich, and concludes that this indicates little feeling for the families of the war dead. Of course it's not a psychology journal article, nor is it even grand inspired journalism; it lacks the detailed argument of "J'accuse", though including some of its rhetorical exuberance.

(Zola, for what it's worth, was criminally convicted of attributing motive merely on the basis of actions-given-evidence.)

Anyhow, I think the article is not intended to express an airtight argument. It's failure to do so does not impugn its value by the lights of its intended goal -- not to document some erstwhile uncertain claims about Bush, but to jolt one out of one's complacency in regarding the known facts about him.