the perils of faith-directed leadership

the following entry was spawned by Ron Suskind’s New York Times article, Without a Doubt. in my opinion, it’s an important and terrifying piece depicting a president possessed by evangelical certainty.

***

faith and religious belief are important in the lives of most people. they take as many shapes as do the people who practice them. our Constitution and our law have enshrined the freedom of religious practice; it is a central tenet of our government to protect these rights. it is also a central principle that religious practice is separate from the practice of government. our founding fathers were wise to legislate this separation, because the practice of religion, based on faith, should not be commingled with the practices of state, which have their feet firmly rooted in the empirical realities of the world in which we all live.

president clinton was a man of faith, as have been many other presidents, and yet i never felt his faith caused him to suspend rational consideration of empirical facts. indeed, there are some who would say that faith (or intuition) and rationality complete a circle, that they balance and inform each other. in this sense, a faith-informed leadership is natural, even expected. however, a president’s faith should never supercede or dominate the choices of government, and this is where i believe we have gone astray.

in short, we seem to have veered into murky territory where faith is being improperly used as a weapon in the war of ideas. if i criticize the president for being a religious zealot who claims himself to be the right hand of God, i am certain people would complain that i am denying the president’s right to his religion. it is natural, after all, that as a religious man, his faith will inform his thinking. as stated above, i couldn’t agree more.

however, when faced with challenging questions or facts that oppose his vision, Bush dismisses them based on his gut instinct. his certainty, driven by his faith, destroys the possibility for dialogue and demands unflagging devotion in his followers. there is no dialogue with George Bush – only dissent or agreement, my way or the highway, black or white. in my mind, this is faith-directed leadership – faith and the certainty it provides have taken the driver’s seat from dialogue, and are leading us on a white–knuckle crusade.

there is a name for democracy without dialogue and dissent – it is dictatorship.

as our democracy suffocates under Bush’s faith-directed leadership, Suskind’s ideas will probably only serve to polarize the electorate even more. the president’s detractors will voraciously consume the article and see it as a ray of light in an ever-darkening room. his supporters will read the first four paragraphs and dismiss it, seeing a biased, left-wing journalist with an agenda to unseat a man making the world safe for freedom.

the most disheartening quote in the article for me was not anythinig said by Bush, but something said by one of his supporters and aides in Washington:

And for those who don’t get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. “You think he’s an idiot, don’t you?” I said, no, I didn’t. “No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don’t care. You see, you’re outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don’t read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it’s good for us. Because you know what those folks don’t like? They don’t like you!” In this instance, the final “you,” of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

this is the division our nation faces. my faith in our electorate is waning – nothing can bridge this kind of gap.

faith-directed leadership is a perilous course, a dark and windy road that America has pursued these past four years. if george bush is re-elected, the consequences of following this road will be broad; they will echo across our futures, not as trumpets celebrating triumph, but as righteous drums of war, paranoia, and fear.

Creative Commons License
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

One thought on “the perils of faith-directed leadership

  1. Modesty Blaise

    Unfortunately,”the most telling quote in the article” has nothing to do with faith-directed leadership. What am I missing here?
    Thanks,
    M. Blaise

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>