<![CDATA[President Bush held his first (and, if his record is any indication, just one of a dozen we can expect in the second term) press conference today and talked, in a oblique way, about religious freedom and bipartisanship. However, his language betrays a man who will disregard any opposition and push through an extremist agenda based on a bare majority of the voting public.
Speaking about the political capital he earned in the election, Bush described the results in zero-sum terms:
You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That’s what happened in the — after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election — and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.
This is reminiscent of Bush’s remark to Bob Woodward that a president doesn’t have to answer to anyone. If memory serves, the president is a servant of the people, but this is a president who regards himself as empowered to do whatever he thinks is right rather than to talk with the people and his political opponents or to compromise in any way. Not good. It’s a message to Democrats, which has been echoed by others on the right: You lost, now get out of the way or be destroyed.
This single-party rule theme came out in the very passage he talked about bipartisanship:
With the campaign over, Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results. I’ll reach out to everyone who shares our goals.
He will reach out to those who “share our goals?” The United States is a stew of goals, but the extreme right has a very short list of goals that it shares with others, including moderate and progressive Republicans.
What about the 49 percent of the people who ardently disagree with the general direction Bush has taken, not to mention the 80 percent to 90 percent of the population that vehemently disagree with Bush about the many of the particulars of his agenda? They don’t appear to share his goals, yet he wants to serve them, too? How? Here’s where George Lakoff’s strong-father model comes into clear focus: Bush is going to tell us what’s right and our opinions be damned.
That message is clear in what Mr. Bush said about religious tolerance:
[M]y answer to people is, I will be your President regardless of your faith, and I don’t expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no President should ever try to impose religion on our society.
A great — the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they’re just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I’m glad — I appreciate all people who voted. I don’t think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you — you don’t have to worship. And if you’re a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you’re equally American. That is — that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.
“I will be your President [the White House transcript capitalizes this, even though it should not be capitalized in this context] regardless of your faith….” certainly appears to mean “I am in charge, even if we don’t agree on the way we worship God.” I heard a conservative commentator the other day proclaim that the election demonstrates this is a country of faith. But this treads all over the line that has allowed the United States to be a haven of religious freedom and tolerance. President Bush barely acknowledged the right not to worship, he sort of shoehorned it in after saying the worship defines our unity.
Our belief in freedom of religion, among other basic American principles, is what unites us. Worship or non-worship or alternative worship should not be the defining characteristic of our unity, it’s an open invitation to extremism and a return to a Jim Crow based on religious preference.
On the whole, however, the President seemed more reasonable and conversationally capable than usual. Unfortunately, if history is any guide, this will be the last wide-ranging conversation Mr. Bush has with the press or the public for the next four years.
That’s where we are. Any communication from this administration seems like a breath of fresh air because there’s so little air left. That’s why Mr. Bush can talk about freedom to worship, because all he offers is the vaguest hope that any but the top one percent will be really safe and free.]]>