There's Glory For You!

A discussion yesterday over at Washington Monthly about the draft devolved quickly into an argument about the word "imperial". I've been thinking about the meaning of words a lot since then, and I figured that was grist for a blog entry.

First, a little Lewis Carroll, whom I cited in the aforementioned thread:

"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."

My interest in this is from a philosophical, linguistic and political perspective, but I'm going to focus on the latter. Last summer I wondered how it is that the wingers seem to be able to frame national debate better than we on the left. A lot of it I think has to do with their choice of words, of course, but also their very willingness to stand firm in how they describe things. Up until recently I've seen Dems/liberals shy away from calling Bush what he is: a lying warmonger who is more concerned about his corporatist agenda than what's good for the country. We wouldn't want to offend the sensibilities of potential voters, especially when there are so many ways to look at things, would we?

Well damn it, I'm tired of letting the wingers get away with using whatever words they want, while we try to not step on anybody's toes. Words have literal meanings, but they also carry nuanced connotations. I use Schlesinger's term "imperial presidency" to describe Bush, not because he is literally an emperor, but because that word for me best describes the mosaic that is this President.

That Bush is up for election in November doesn't negate the use of "imperial", as some have argued. Nor does the fact that Bush lacks absolute power mean he isn't imperial. Frankly, no leader really has absolute power as all regimes require consent. We might overthrow Bush in a few months, just as other rulers have had their reigns ended--ours is simply a peaceful method.

British monarchs ruled a global empire and yet their powers were limited by the Magna Carta as well as the practical realities of their domain. Roman emperors also had to contend with members of the ruling class to stay in power. Being imperial is not a matter of whether you wear a crown or instead have elections--it has everything to do with the concentration of power. Bush, until the worm started turning, has had a great deal of power in his grasp.

Not only does the Commander-in-Chief of the most power military in the world wield incredible violent power, as evident in our toppling the Taliban and Saddam, he has incredible power at home. The party Bush heads is in control of the entire apparatus of centralized government in this country. His ability to push through his agenda, particularly post-9/11, is proof positive: USA PATRIOT, the Iraq war resolution, the Medicare bill, etc, all point to his power.

What's more, Bush's well-documented belief that God selected him to be President shows that he feels he's the center of some grand cosmic plan. Beyond narcissism, his own statements demonstrates he has no interest in openness or opinions that diverge from his world view. The administration's refusal to be transparent--the deceptions and outright lies they've used to sell wars and legislation--is part and parcel of an imperial presidency.

More literally, the fact that the US, at Bush's behest, has launched imperial wars and expanded our global hegemony is a clear sign. But don't take my word for it, look at what folks at the Air War College say:

The uniqueness of the American empire as a voluntary association of market democracies does not alter the imperial obligations of the United States as the center of that empire.

We might be a different flavor, but we're an empire all the same. And Number 43 wields supreme executive power in the American empire not only by Constitutional writ, but also due to his party's accumulation of federal control and his own Nixonian assertion of his presidential prerogative.

Now, Bush said on numerous occasions that he is a "war president". If I might be so bold, I take issue with that.

FDR was clearly a war president. He successfully lead our country through an immensely destructive global conflict against three absolutely tryannical regimes, including one which institutionalized mass murder, that really threatened the entire world. Not only did Roosevelt mobilize our people and call for sacrifice on a national scale, he also offered hope and reassurance at the same time. He was intelligent, articulate and engaged, and a true leader in horrific times.

This whole charade of comparing our current situation to WWII, let alone calling our struggle against terror a "war", is completely ludicrous. We are in no way threatened to the same degree, no matter how often Bush and his apologists repeat the cant, and our latest rationale of "liberation" for invading Iraq is hogwash. Nor has Bush offered hope or vision, except to say we will keep fighting evildoers and that everybody should go about their lives as before.

Bush, in his zeal to tie his wars of choice to a just war of the past, shows just how little he understands about our true conflict. World War II was an example of what Boyd called Attrition Warfare. Today we are engaged in a Moral Conflict, which requires not bravado and bellicosity, but constructive cooperation and addressing root causes. Unfortunately Bush has not shown true leadership because he ignores the truth as he annoints himself War President for political gain.

Now allow me to be Humpty Dumpty for a moment: Bush is not a war president; rather, he is a "president in a time of war", and an imperial one at that. Too bad that's precisely what we don't need right now. We need "glory", and I don't mean a "a nice knock-down argument".

ntodd