Our King President

I am certainly not the only one to refer to yesterday's ceremony as a coronation. Jim Wallis' point yesterday about the language of "righteous empire" has stuck with me. There is a sense of divine right and theocracy from this president, and I think that is very, very frightening. Speaking of Wallis, here is an article from Sojourners on the theology of empire. (Note, it may ask for a brief registration (name, email address and zip code) but it is worth it.)

Another oft repeated point is this administration's Orwellian language. "Clear Skies" Initiative means less pollution controls and more pollution. "Healthy Forests" means more timber cutting. Some of that is necessary, but most of the wood that needs cleared isn't the stuff that the timber companies want. This is a clear give away to timber companies and a further undermining of environmental controls.

I was thinking of that when I watched the highlights on Bush's speech. I couldn't watch the speech myself. Watching him speak with that self-righteous smirk (which I actually think is a sign that he pronounced something hard) is more than I can take. But back to the speech. The Daily Show had a counter marking the most used phrases. "Freedom" was used 27 times, and I think "liberty" came in second with 15. Those are good words, don't get me wrong. But given the administration's use of words in the past, it makes me flinch. I am thinking of a party that was following Indians off reservations to write down license plate numbers--or sending flyers to black neighborhoods warning that they couldn't vote if they had any unpaid traffic tickets--or hiring private firms to register voters and throwing away the Democrat ones--or registering newly minted citizens with forms already checked "Republican"--or badmouthing a war hero while excusing a draft dodger--all of this is incompatible with Freedom and Liberty. A friend remarked offline that we were bringing democracy to the world, "if we had to kill everyone to do it."

I would imagine that foreigners hearing his speech might also take issue with these words coming from a President who has excused or ignored or avoided the issue of torture. We are trying now to export our torture, you know. We want the right to send people that might be terrorists to countries that have no problem hooking up wires to genitals. This administration has suggested that our judicial system of over 200 years is too weak to be trusted. Just because we can't prove that someone is a terrorist, we reject our system? How is that compatible with the President's usage of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty? We believe in our system so much, that we will turn over to our king the right to incarcerate even American citizens on his say so?

That is our Achilles Heel. Our identification with key American ideals is strong--so strong that if that appeal is used correctly, we will follow bad people. All Americans like Freedom and Liberty. We all like Democracy and Equality and Opportunity. We all like these things. Watch every activist group in the country from either side. They all appeal to those ideals and accuse their opponents of undermining or opposing those ideals. No one opposes gay rights because they advocate removing rights from people--those have to be "special rights." (I really don't think insuring that gay people are not fired or denied housing is a "special right.")

So am I just doing the same thing? Perhaps. But I am very conscious of the language we use. I know that those of us on the left can use language too. The right has been very adept at accusing us of doing it the most, in fact, we are supposedly the origins of Politically Correct language. Think of that the next time the President's people punish someone for questioning the patriotism of the Patriot Act, or daring to suggest that the war in Iraq was ill-conceived. Think of that the next time a critic of capitalism is called a communist.

But back to our President (who I am confident history will rank in the worst category). Why do I flinch when he uses these good words like Liberty and Freedom and Democracy? Why do those sound like a threat in his hands? Because every other use of our good ideals has been subverted by these people. I would think that conservative Christians would be concerned as well. After all, the President never mentioned Social Security reform during the last election and talked a lot about Gay Marriage. Which is he focussing on now? As others have noted, if he is really a social conservative, why is he more concerned with tax cuts for the very wealthy than Prayer in School or banning my gay friends from marrying, or modifying the Constitution to allow idols statues of the Ten Commandments on government lands?

I have been saying for sometime that conservatives should really examine this President's actions because I don't think he shares their values. Most conservatives don't want the right to have more rights--yet this president said during the campaign that there was no point in taxing the rich because they had better lawyers and could avoid payment. What the hell is that? He doesn't share your values. He isn't genuine and he isn't good.

Update I hadn't read my blogs this morning, and just noticed that Greg beat me to it. Great post over at his blog and I include a little here:

the parish: I Think I Saw Rove's Arm Up His Ass...

Some reactions from the inaugural address:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know:  The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors.  When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Unless you live in the Darfur region of the Sudan (or almost anywhere else in Africa), or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or China...

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are, the future leaders of your free country.

Unless you have Marxist leanings or refuse to submit to the economic plan U.S. corporations have for your country. Then we'll call you a communist or oppressor and have you assassinated or ousted.