All of us live in two worlds but not all of us are aware of it. The outer world sees our façade and judges us by our demeanor and actions, the inner world which shapes the outer is hidden and, apart from dreams, most of the time even from ourselves. This is why we really never fully know another person and why unpleasant surprises can occur even in longstanding relationships.  This is especially true when we have never met an individual who has a profound impact on our lives by virtue of his station in life as is the case for our President. Commentators have frequently mentioned that he lives “in a bubble” or an “echo chamber” where only those opinions penetrate that are in conformity with his preconceived ideas regardless of the reality as seen by the rest of the world. His supporters see this as a definite plus because all great Presidents have been visionaries who see beyond the limited horizon of ordinary people and it is their duty to steadfastly lead their flock in the desired direction. Other individuals with greater life experience know that visionaries are not necessarily right and the harm they can inflict on their way to their goal can be immeasurable.

It behooves us, therefore, to attempt a look behind the smiling, and occasionally smirking, façade Mr. Bush presents us with. I have often noted this inappropriate smile, bordering on a smirk, during his public speeches and again yesterday in his State of the Union Address to Congress. Inasmuch as we have no direct access to our President we can only judge by his body language on TV, especially in unguarded moments, and how well his words match his deeds.  These are limitations that even the authors of most books have to contend with and their opinions are also molded by their own inner worlds. I am referring especially to one by Justin Frank M.D who presented us in: Bush on the Couch a psychoanalytic interpretation of the President’s conduct.

Although I am neither a disciple of Freud nor of Melanie Klein, who served as Dr. Frank’s mentor, there are some aspects in that book about our President which are not widely known. Barbara Bush, the President’s mother, appears to have been a dominant and emotionally distant mother who ruled by fear, instead of the benign grandmotherly image that came across our TV screens. Since father Bush was frequently away for long periods this relationship was also troubled and Dr. Frank wrote an entire chapter on “Oedipus Wrecks.” Dr. Frank believes that this family constellation, which was further complicated by the loss of a sister at an early impressionable age, prevented the development of a mature personality structure. The young George, who was expected to grow up in his father’s image, developed various coping mechanisms. These included: becoming the jokester in the family, excessive use of alcohol, as well as a sadistic streak. The latter is documented by some examples which need not be repeated here because they are based on hearsay.  Dr. Frank believes that this latent sadism is directly linked to Bush’s penchant for war. While this may or may not be the case, one incident as reported by Mr. Bush himself struck me because his action was precisely the opposite of mine when confronted with a teenage party in our house that had gotten out of hand. Frank quotes from Bush’s autobiography: “‘I may have been a candidate for Governor, but I didn’t have much status at my house. I will never forget one night in 1994. After a long day on the campaign trail, I went to pick the girls up at a party at eleven PM, well past my bedtime. They had ordered me, ‘Do not come in,’ so I sat outside waiting and waiting as other parents walk in and out to retrieve their children, until mine finally came to the car thirty minutes later.’” Frank points out that the girls were 13 years old at the time and that 11 PM was beyond the father’s bedtime rather than theirs. This episode is telling because it deals with character. For me this shows not only that did he not fulfill the role most other parents would have played but that he seemed to actually have been somehow proud of it. The most recent coping mechanism of his life, after he had renounced alcohol, is religious righteousness.

            While the Frank book has some polemical overtones, the book by Peter Singer: “The President of Good & Evil. The Ethics of George Bush,” is written in a style one is used to from academia. Dr. Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values, and has published extensively on various contemporary ethical issues including stem cell research. One sentence in the Introduction appeared to hit the nail on the head: “When I have told friends and colleagues that I am working on a book about ‘Bush’s ethics,’ some of them quip that the phrase is an oxymoron, or that it must be a very short book.” Actually the book is 270 pages long and might have benefited if it had been kept shorter. Singer’s conclusion is that the President’s words and deeds diverge to such an extent that we simply cannot trust what he says.

            Since I did vote in good conscience for Mr. Bush’s façade in November of 2000 and was sorely disappointed by his conduct in office thereafter I became curious why I had misjudged this man so profoundly. The reason was simple. President Clinton had disgraced the office; he had looked me in the eye through the TV camera lens, wagged his finger at me and said emphatically: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” This was a blatant lie which he repeated under oath. He then tried to excuse his conduct by redefining what the word “is” means and that sexual conduct does not include fellatio. In addition it had become known that Miss Lewinsky had performed her services for him in the Oval Office during business hours. The clean cut Mr. Bush and his rhetoric of bringing dignity back to the White House seemed to be the antidote. The fact that he had surrounded himself with people who had honorably served in previous Republican administrations and brought the experience the newly appointed President lacked, was also relevant. I use the word “appointed” advisedly because the election was decided by one vote of the Supreme Court rather than through the usual voting process. We now know that the country was thoroughly misled about Mr. Bush the first time and although some of us saw behind the façade by 2004 it was too late. I was not alone in my deep disappointment because even Pat Buchanan admitted last night in the post State of the Union discussions among TV pundits that he had voted only once for Bush. That this couldn’t have been in 2004 is obvious.

What I, and others, had thought of as a seasoned team with Vice-President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell in charge turned into the opposite of what we had anticipated. Cheney and Rumsfeld were steeped in Cold War mentality and the executors of the ideas of a then unknown group of ex-Trotskyists who had restyled themselves as “Neoconservatives.” General Powell, who was supposed to lead the Foreign office, submitted to the Pentagon’s usurpation of foreign policy and became odd man out. Condoleeza Rice, the National Security advisor, whose role would have been to present the various differing opinions on critical subjects to the President, was out of her depth when confronted by a united Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz team. The Neocons, as they have become known carried the day from behind the scenes and the name is most appropriate because they did succeed to “con” not only the administration but the entire country. The Iraq war, with shades of Vietnam, can be squarely laid on their shoulders.

But where was the President in all of this?  As it appears now he didn’t know what to do with this Presidency that had been bestowed upon him, through the efforts of Karl Rove who had engineered all his political campaigns, and was content to let Uncle Dick tell him what to do. Since they had similar backgrounds, from the oil industry, there was mutual trust and the good ship USA embarked on its journey into the new century in the spirit of Cold War triumphalism: We have licked the communists; we are the only superpower, and now we can enforce our will on the rest of the world. When Osama bin Laden sent a rude reminder that other people have different ideas the Bush administration reacted in the way Osama had hoped it would and we are now in the midst of a war the end of which is not in sight. This statement is not just Monday morning quarterbacking but it was obvious by October 2001 when I wrote in these pages in response to the 9/11 tragedy: “The disenfranchised young people in the Muslim countries are sufficiently restless to yearn for change and Islamic revolutions on the model of Iran are to be brought about. Therefore, major military action by the United States is a requirement to bring this plan to fruition and continued provocation through a variety of terror attacks is the only way to accomplish this objective [emphasis in the original].” If this was obvious to me, who am not clairvoyant, it was obvious to others in our country who could have acted more prudently.

This brings me back to our president because the ultimate responsibility is, of course, his and this is where character comes in. From what has been written about his character in the meantime and what we have been able to glimpse from his personal appearances on TV it has become apparent that he lacks some essential ingredients to make him into the person he pretends to be. The foremost aspect is that he came of age in the rebellious climate of the 1960’s. He imbued that lifestyle including the idea of knowing better than his elders. He wasted his years at Yale and failed to get a solid education in the humanities, social sciences, and business. This lack of education could not be made up later because the motivation wasn’t there. Subsequently all his business ventures failed and he had to be bailed out by family connections. Whenever one doesn’t know what to do with oneself one can always go into politics especially when one has name recognition as the son of a Vice President. Karl Rove discovered a malleable, friendly, good looking young man and put him first into the governorship of Texas and then the White House.

Although he had obviously yearned for greatness he had no good idea how to accomplish that and he essentially wasted the first half year of his term. The only topic on which he addressed the nation was stem cells and then he went on vacation. This is the reason why the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 911 hurt so much and why Moore had to be bedeviled beyond need.  Let us now look closer at what the President said he would do with the high office that had been bestowed upon him and the results.

            In his Inaugural Address on January 20, 2001 the newly elected President not only gave the “all purpose” political speech that any candidate will make but there were also some specifics that deserve to be remembered. One dealt with the scars the Clinton Presidency had left on the public conscience, and the fight which had followed the Florida election debacle which had embittered the partisans of both candidates:

            “And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country. We do not accept this, and we will not allow it … And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.”

            Sad to say but in February of 2006 our country is even more divided and polarized than at any time during the past century as James Q Wilson has documented in a recent article (“How divided are we?” Commentary February 2006). Wilson lists a number of causes, some of which are beyond anybody’s control. But since Wilson also still believes in the righteousness of the Iraq war and our ability to control the events in that country by military means he urges the country to pull together at least in that regard. This is, however, also wishful thinking and the country will not be able to come together until we have weathered the aftermath of that ill considered invasion of somebody else’s country.

            The President went on to say on that occasion:

“Today we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation’s promise through civility, courage, compassion and character … And I can pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho we will not pass to the other side … America, at its best, is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected … Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats; it is a call to conscience …  I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well … What you do is as important as anything government does …  I ask you to be citizens; citizens not spectators; citizens not subjects; responsible citizens building communities of service and a nation of character.”

            These were words the country longed to hear in January of 2001 but what came of them? Let me take Luke’s parable of “The Good Samaritan” first because it shows that the President was either ignorant of the message Jesus tried to convey or used it simply as a catch phrase. Since this parable contains the essence of Christianity vis a vis Judaism we should take it more seriously. Although the parable itself is, of course, a by word in our culture the context is usually ignored even by the President. Let us remember the situation as related in Luke 10:25-37. A lawyer tried to “test” Jesus by asking what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus then asked the lawyer: “What is written in the law?” whereupon the lawyer recited: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” In so doing he had quoted first Deuteronomy 6:5 and then added a modified version of Leviticus 19:18. The translation of that passage reads in the Hebrew Torah: “Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people [emphasis added], but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.”  Jesus congratulated the lawyer to his reply but lawyers are hardly ever content with plain words and continued with the question: “And who is my neighbor?” This was indeed the critical one under existing circumstances in Palestine of those days, and still is currently.

            These were the circumstances that led up to the parable. It is actually found only in Luke, who was a Greek convert, and the parable reflects the Greek sentiment of universality against the Jewish one which limited charity and benevolence to members of the Jewish people. By choosing this parable Jesus forced the lawyer to admit that only the despised Samaritan had shown mercy and had thereby acted like a neighbor. The discourse ended with Jesus telling the lawyer: “Go and do likewise.” At the present time the Jews living in the state of Israel are again confronted with neighbors in their midst whom they’d rather not have, but as Jews they are under no obligation to act according to Jesus’ teachings. But we, who call ourselves Christians, and especially those members of our Church who regard themselves as “born again,” are commanded to do so. This is the crucial fact our President has either ignored, or willfully disregarded.

            I believe that it is this remarkable ignorance of classic literature, even the Bible which he stated he reads regularly, combined with a profound lack of interest in opinions other than his own have turned his good intentions into the disasters his Presidency has spawned. By closing his eyes in 2001 to the plight of today’s Samaritans in Palestine, i.e. the non-Jewish population, he has not only violated the fundamental principle of the Christian religion but by calling Sharon “a man of peace” he has opened the door to further repressive policies against the Palestinians. Today they can’t even travel that short distance from Jerusalem to Jericho without passing through checkpoints with accompanying humiliations by the soldiers manning them. We should not blame the Israeli government; they are Jews and live by a different code which places the perceived needs of the nation above those of the individual, especially when the individual is one of the goyim. The rest of the world sees these scenes on their TV sets but our media are complicit by not showing them to us. This is the proverbial beam in our own eye that needs to be removed before casting stones on others but this is not an example our President sets.

            The President also encouraged  us to be “citizens,” not “subjects,” but anyone who tried to warn the leadership of mistakes about to be made or make suggestions how to remedy some of those that had already been committed ran not only into a stone wall but could expect to be vilified. We are at war, we are now told; in war the rules have to be bent and incursions on civil liberties are necessary. This includes violation of international law as for instance holding foreign nationals without trial at Guantanamo for several years without any attempt to set a time limit on their detention. Not only are the opinions of common people disregarded but the President has not even treated some members of his inner circle as equals whose views should have been valued. They were also treated as “subjects” who were expected to yield to superior wisdom.

            September 11 was in a perverse way a dream come true for Osama bin Laden as well as George Bush. The successful attack on the symbols of American power provided the basis for potential greatness to both of them. The President, who had floundered, now found his goal: A group of vicious, evil people encouraged and supported by “rogue states” had declared war on America and he would retaliate not only in kind but seven fold; he would be remembered by history as the President who rescued America from its darkest hour; he would punish the forces of evil to an extent that they would never ever dream of harming us and he would bring freedom and happiness to the oppressed; the means don’t matter the goal counts. This was the messianic vision he initially pursued by eradicating the Taliban’s haven for terrorists in Afghanistan and subsequently by liberating the Iraqis from their dictator. Freedom, which he equals with democracy, which in turn is in his mind only characterized by relatively free elections, will rule the day and free people don’t make war. This was his Credo and as of yesterday’s speech still is.       

            While watching last night’s State of the Union speech I made notes of key passages and printed out the speech for accuracy this morning. In the following excerpts I shall limit myself to foreign policy pronouncements:

“We seek the end of tyranny in our world … Dictatorships shelter terrorists, feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause  … We are on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory … Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning … Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat  their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the political alternative of political freedom and peaceful change … liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity.”

These are the messianic goals the President believes in but he doesn’t seem to know the realities on the ground and how to achieve his vision. There will be no “victory” in Iraq or the war on Terror in the conventional sense where our soldiers come home to ticker tape parades on Fifth Avenue. The best outcome that is likely to be achievable in Iraq is through sitting down individually with the various insurgent groups, discussing mutually agreeable goals and then abiding by them. This idea is not pie in the sky but according to this week’s Newsweek edition is being put into action by some of our military commanders at this time.

To succeed in the battle against terrorism the President will also need to adopt a different strategy. Immediately after the Inaugural Address “autopsy” by the pundits, PBS showed its “Frontline” program where the topic was international terrorism and especially how it affects Europe. One learned to one’s surprise that not only is the U.S. not helping the European efforts but by going its own way is actually hindering the prosecution of suspects. We are holding people, who could serve as witnesses in European criminal prosecution cases, incommunicado in Guantanamo or shiping them off to other countries where confessions are obtained under torture, which are invalid in European courts. We can ask ourselves now: does our President know this? What is his plan for achieving the victory he is talking about? Does he know that Al Qaeda’ s basic ideology has become a virus that can readily replicate itself even if Osama and other top leaders were killed or captured now? The proverbial cat is out of the bag and there is a potential reservoir not only of thousands but hundreds of thousands disenchanted young Muslims who can now get training in Iraq, just as Osama and his early followers got theirs in Afghanistan. It is another irony of history that we, who were delighted by the success of the mujahideen over the Soviets in Afghanistan, are now on the receiving end of that same ideology in Iraq.

Our President also promised us last night that his administration will see to it that our children get a better education in math and science. This is a laudable goal but in addition they need a better education in the humanities, geography and history to compete in the world they are growing into. But since our President is personally uninformed in these subjects one might hope that he might be willing to at least partially remedy these deficiencies on weekends and when he is on vacation. He might also benefit, as had been suggested last September, by staying at his desk in the White House rather than traveling around the country and making campaign speeches.

Unfortunately this is not in his character; he seems to have restless legs and apparently does not like staying in Washington. He enjoys the trappings and the perks of his office but not the onerous day to day grind and chores. Thus, we seem to have in the President a person who has been elevated to a position beyond his capabilities. He seems to be aware to some extent of his shortcomings because he appears obviously ill at ease whenever he has to talk in an unscripted manner. To overcome these problems he has now created a defense system around his “vision,” which cannot be breached by rational argument. The question does the President lie and to what extent seems to be irrelevant because from all appearances he is honestly deluded. He believes what he says is true and that makes it true regardless of facts. That this is potentially a highly dangerous state of mind in a person who has his finger on the proverbial button is obvious.

While the public has come to see, to some extent at least, that the country is on the wrong course we can’t expect much help from the Democrats. They have shown their ineptness again last night. In the response to the President’s speech the Governor of Virginia did not address the points the President had made but read a speech of his own, or written for him, which was irrelevant. Our hope will have to rest with disaffected Republicans who see that their party has been hijacked by the Neocons’ philosophy and who have the courage to lead a revolt in Congress.

Elections are coming up again in November and Karl Rove’s strategy for victory is to stoke the fear of terrorism and to hammer away that “the President has created a safer world during the past four years.” It has worked in the past and he hopes that a gullible electorate will let him get away with it again. He might, unless the wheels of justice that are grinding interminably slow will eventually catch up with his Machiavellian policies and all the scandals the administration hides, under the mantle of national security, come to light.

Thus, my wish for the President is that he begins to devote himself to the message of the New Testament rather than that of the Old. The Father of Jesus and the God of Moses are different concepts and a choice has to be made by whoever speaks in religious terms. He doesn’t have to take my word for it, which is available in The Moses Legacy, but he could read the more popular Harold Bloom’s: Jesus and Yahweh. The Names Divine.  Christians have been told to pray in secret and to conduct our affairs in the open because: “Whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops [Luke 12:3].” Unfortunately the President has turned Jesus’ message into its opposite: he prays openly and conducts business in secret. Somebody ought to point this out to him and penetrate the wall of self-delusion he has created for himself, so that reason and good will can find a home again in our country.