Ron Suskind's New Book

Ron Suskind's latest book, The Way of the World sounds really interesting, although nothing seems to surprise - or move - us any more. His book just confirms everything most of us already know about George W. Bush and his administration: lies, deception, fanaticism. I wrote an essay three years ago based on Ron Suskind's 2004 article Without a Doubt. I compared George Bush's foreign policy doctrine to Hans J. Morgenthau's idea of realism based on Suskind's article. I think I was quite correct in my estimation. My essay below. T

Ron Suskind

Running the World on Faith

What would Morgenthau say? According to Ron Suskind, George W. Bush is running the most powerful country - and the world - on his instincts and his faith, not on the principles based on the theory of realism championed by Hans J. Morgenthau (Suskind, 2004). Actually George W. Bush’s foreign policy is a strange concoction of Moses trying to find a way to the Promised Land through the wilderness, and realism’s belief in man’s intrinsically evil and untrustworthy nature. He acts as if God speaks to him directly, and those near him must trust his leadership without question or doubt. This type of autocratic leadership conflicts with democratic principles of openness and rationality.

Hans J. Morgenthau asserted that there are certain principles that guide (or ought to guide) foreign policy decisions of State leaders. He called these the “six principles of political realism” (Morgenthau, 1978). According to Morgenthau human nature is depraved, and always seeks self-interest, and thus nation-States will pursue their national interests, making cooperation challenging at best. One could argue that George W. Bush believes this principle to be (partially) true: all other (non-western) nations are evil, and endeavor to destroy the morally superior United States of America and its western values. Bush’s solution is that the United States must act first (pre-emptive war) to prevent this destruction. President Bush is willing to act unilaterally without entangling alliances. Indeed, he seems to prefer to go it alone: the risks are greater, but so are the rewards. To George W. Bush there are no feelings of ambivalence or confusing grey areas of diplomacy that require negotiation. Others are either with him or against him, and they must choose accordingly. Jesus himself said: "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters” (Matt.12:30). With such powerful friends, who needs cumbersome alliances?

Morgenthau believed that States should seek balance of power in order to avoid conflict and war. George W. Bush parts ways with him also with respect to this principle: The United States is better off being the single superpower in the world. According to Ron Suskind, an aide of Bush described the “new reality” of the United States after 9/11:

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' (Suskind, 2004)

To Morgenthau the guiding principle of political realism is prudence. According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary prudence means: “the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason; sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs; skill and good judgement in the use of resources; caution or circumspection as to danger or risk” (Merriam-Webster, 1976). According to Suskind the Bush White House disdains rationality and good judgement as the basis for making decisions; instead, action, based on gut instinct and trust in one’s righteous cause, sets the pace for foreign policy. Faith and loyalty are expected and even demanded. Risks are evaluated on a biblical scale of right and wrong. Risking (or sacrificing) the lives of American soldiers and enemy civilians are well worth it in the heavenly battle of good and evil.

But can democracy sustain this type of insult without serious damage? What if George W. Bush’s faith isn’t enough? What if his interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is faulty? Morgenthau states that we “cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful” (Morgenthau, 1978). It is dangerous to assume that one knows what is best for the world. Realism expects us to judge political actions by their political consequences, not by their “good” motives, for “there can be no political morality without prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly moral action (Morgenthau, 1978).

T --- 2005