Customer Reviews

The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

If you belive that this country and the world would be a much better place if people took the time to think through their opinions and try to maintain consistent ethical beliefs then this book is for you. Singer is a revolutionary philosopher not because he espouses any new ethical theories but rather for the thorough manner he extrapolates innteresting moral conclusions from basic ethical principles. In this book he cuts through any and all political mudslinging and spin, leaving only the facts and reason as a guide. Not only is Singer systematicaly logical in his condemnation of the President he is also not without humility. When Bush deserves credit, he gets it (like his action towards AIDS treatment in Africa.) Singer seeems to have no agenda toward the President when the book begins. No axe to grind. Because of his persistent fairness Singer has written the Presidents most damning and justified condemnation. Critics might call Singer simplistic, deconstructing complex moral questions into simple black and white principals. This criticism is not in itself substancial unless someone could cite a specific example of incorrect ethical reasoning on the part of Mr. Singer. They would be hard pressed to do so. Critics be warned, Singer is no simpleton. His simple writing style is a deliberate choice on his part to make the arguments as clear and consise as possible. He understands that tax policy is a complicated and thorny issue but he avoids the numerous tangents that could arise from this issue and sticks to his subject, the ethical consistency of GW. Because of his logical and forceful arguments Singer has shown more conclusively,and with much less bile, that our President is very, very, ethically troubled.

This is the first Peter Singer book I have read, and I now plan to read more. Unlike a lot of anti-Bush books that appeared before the election, I believe this one is still worth reading. It retains its value because it focuses on ethics, morals, and philosophical thought (or the lack thereof), not simply politics. Singer doesn't come out and shout, "Bush is lying!" or "Bush is wrong!...". He instead uses several methods to point out inconsistencies between the president's words and deeds. I believe that the result will more than stand up to any objective review, and may serve to change the opinions of an open-minded reader on any number of the subjects addressed. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in philosophy, ethics, political science, or current events.

As a sort of corrective to such recent books on the current occupant of the White House as David Frum's "The Right Man" and John Podhoretz's "Bush Country," noted ethicist Peter Singer's book "The President of Good & Evil" takes a dispassionate but quietly devastating look at George W. Bush's ethical failings in office. It should be required reading for all Americans who are planning on voting this November.

Singer doesn't get angry and heated over the way that Bush has handled the events of the past few years. His is a very subdued, rational approach, and as such it is more effective (and, incidentally, more devastating) than fire breathing rhetoric would have been. He simply subjects Bush's statements to intense ethical scrutiny, and it will surprise no one who doesn't get their opinions from Fox News that, time after time, even when Singer goes out of his way to give him the benefit of the doubt, Bush comes up short.

My favorite example of this is when Bush is pre-taping a radio address the day before he's scheduled to go to California. The text of the broadcast read: "Today I am in California," but Bush kept petulantly saying, "But I'm not in California." Singer's comment on this inane behavior is priceless: "Taking the obligation to be truthful so literally suggests an arrested moral development." And the analysis that flows from this insight, inspired by the work of Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, is not only plausible, it's pretty terrifying to consider the very real possibility that we have been led into war and hundreds of Americans have lost their lives because the man running the country is morally retarded. But I wouldn't bet against it.

Regardless of whether you support George W. Bush or not (and I should think it's pretty clear by now that I do not), you owe it to yourself to read "The President of Good & Evil" and consider what it says very carefully before you go into the polling place next November. There's a lot at stake, and this book might make a difference. I hope it will.

Because this book bends over backwards to be fair to Bush, it may make a good present of persuasion. Giving a copy to a Republican friend might create a good deal of cognitive dissonance. Bush comes off as a serious threat to the planet, and not the slightest exaggeration is used to make this case.

Ultimately, however, the book holds Bush to standards he would find alien, and charges him with inconsistency where he would no doubt insist there is none. Not everyone will be converted, not withstanding Singer's references early and late in the book to rational argument and universal standards.

The first 200 of the 225 pages take us on a tour of Bush's ethical pronouncements and behavior, in search of consistency or meaning. This is extremely well done, and each section constitutes a perfect primer on what is wrong with this president and why we need to vote him out.

Predictably, the contradictions are legion and the findings of hypocrisy plentiful. At times, I wish Singer had focused less on Bush's hypocrisy than on the damage done by his behavior.

The one instance in which Singer goes beyond commonly accepted standards to critique an ethical problem in Bush's behavior that most Americans would let pass comes when he suggests that Bush's religious habits of thought constitute a handicap for someone in a position requiring a questioning and discerning mind. Singer suggests that someone who bases his beliefs on faith may not be ideally qualified for a position of power.

Of course every other American president ever elected has been a theist, or at least a deist, or at least has professed to be. But Bush is especially clear about connecting his religion to his decision-making process. I find it credible that Bush's habits of faith deserve the credit Greg Thielmann, a proliferation expert who worked for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, gives them when he says, "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers.'"

I thoroughly enjoyed the first 200 pages of Singer's book, although I longed for some development of what Singer thinks Bush's intentions actually are and whether he thinks Bush is a habitual liar as well as a failed utilitarian. The last 25 pages provided a disappointing analysis.

Singer shows in this final chapter that Bush is not consistently basing his decisions on concern for individual rights or on utilitarian calculations or on Christianity. He then suggests, in what seems to me a major cop-out, that Bush uses an "intuitive ethic" and "follows his instincts." But this tells us nothing about where those "instincts" came from or what they look like or which are stronger than others. It gives us no indication of when Bush is telling us his honest motivations and when he is hiding them. Nor does it explain patterns in Bush's behavior, such as his almost consistent favoritism toward the extremely wealthy and those who have given him money.

But Singer isn't through. He goes on to argue that Bush strikes people who meet him as honest and good, and that Bush must either be a tremendous actor when he lies or (what Singer finds more probable) he must be the ignorant puppet of right-wing conspirators. Singer argues that when Bush, for example, claims that Saddam Hussein wouldn't let inspectors into Iraq it demonstrates that Bush "can hardly have had a firm grasp on the situation that he was supposedly directing." Singer (mustering all the nuance of Bush's "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.") writes on the final page of the book: "When Bush speaks about ethics, he is either sincere or he is insincere."

But it's just not that simple. When Bush invents a fiction about Hussein not letting inspectors in, he knows that he and a servile corporate media have the power to rewrite history. At the same time, to some limited extent, he undoubtedly believes what he is saying. He is coached by his intellectual superiors, and he takes his statements seriously, but at the same time he knows which topics to avoid, when to change the conversation, and how to hedge on the hard points. He does occasional interviews, after all. He doesn't just read speeches. People (including Bush) are far, far more complex than Singer gives them credit for.

The simple-minded conclusion to this book is especially surprising given Singer's critique of religion in the same book. Singer understands that Bush is a sincere Christian, and even faults him for it. Singer also understands that Bush is not consistently a Christian. Yet, Singer does not piece together the fact that Bush's beliefs carry varying DEGREES of sincerity.

When people struggle with trying to "have faith," they are choosing, as Blaise Pascal did openly, to believe something. And this phenomenon is not unique to religion. We choose to believe what we want to believe quite often and often fairly consciously. Some are able to persuade themselves of their belief in paradise to the extent that they will fly airplanes into buildings. Others are able, with a degree of honesty, to say they believe in Heaven, while still beign terrified of death. There is no black and white here. We cannot say that Bush is either sincere or insincere, either a brilliantly handled moron or an acting genius.

Bush is a liar who to various degrees has convinced himself of his various lies. This means that he is a human being who can be held responsible for his actions and who could conceivably be persuaded to change his ways. He is not purely a puppet whose imperialistic oil baron handlers could be seamlessly replaced by environmentally sensitive socialist handlers. Nor does he quite realize the implications of everything he says ? including the ethical incoherence of his positions, something that Singer's book would reveal to him ? whether or not he'd need to get someone to read it to him aloud.

In contrast to Michael Moore's emotionally charged Hollywood-style rant against George Bush, Peter Singer takes a methodical and largely-detached academic approach to deconstructing George Bush. I find Peter Singer's approach much more convincing. Each chapter analyzes Bush's ethics on a different issue: justice and opportunity in America, civil liberties, religion, America as a good world citizen, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America as the world's policeman, and finally a critique of George Bush's personal ethics. On every issue, Singer meticulously contrasts George Bush's lofty public pronouncements against the actual deeds of his administration. His arguments are logical, persuasive and fully supported with 41 pages of references. The discrepancies are so glaring that one often asks, "How does he get away with this?"

Peter Singer is clearly one of the greatest minds of our times and in many respects it is beneath him to deal with a topic as transitory as the Bush administration when he could be writing on more enduring topics such as euthanasia or animal rights. However, he has done a great service to American politics by exposing the ethical contractions of George Bush and the right-wing conservative movement.

As one who is intersted in political philosophy and ethics, it has always befuddled me why there is such a death of popular books looking at politics from a moral point of view. With this book, though, ethicist Peter Singer has shown the necessity of examining politics through such a lens - especially the politics of a president who invokes moral justifications as much as George W. Bush does.

Singer offers us a cogent and meticulous examination of Bush's ethical stances on domestic economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. Singer's particular focus is on demonstrating not only (a) inconsistencies in Bush's ethics and (b)highlighting discrepancies between what Bush says and what he does.

As an example of (a), Singer points out that while Bush justifies his opposition to stem-cell research by asserting, in natural rights language, that we must be a culture that values the importance of all human life, he simultaneously shows no hesitancy to use utilitarian logic when it comes to warring with Iraq (the unavoidable killing of innocents might be outweighed by the benefit of liberating Iraq and - supposedly - making American lives safer.) An example of (b) might be that during his campaign for president, Bush exalted states rights rhetoric, but when he came to office, Bush showed no hesitancy to trump states rights by proposing and supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (marriage having always been the domain of the states.) In 200+ pages of deft analysis, Singer offers many examples of both types of inconsistency and offers many good arguments for both.

The only problems I had with the book are these: first, Singer is so convinced of his own ethical stances that he finds little need to argue for those views so much as argue against the president's. A prime example is when Singer takes issue with Bush's assertions that America is an amazingly free society by suggesting that since we don't spend more on programs to help the poor, that we really aren't that free at all. With little argument to show why more income redistribution necessarily equals more freedom, I am left to think that libertarians and conservatives (who do not take this as given) will hardly be convinced by this. In other words, it is chapters like these, where Singer takes his own ethical stances for granted, that he will achieve nothing more than preaching to the already converted.

Another problem I had is that while Singer does a good job highlighting how Bush's presidential record differs much from his campaign rhetoric, he seems unaware of two possible explanations: If Bush's campaign rhetoric differs from his in-office action, it might be that like many presidents in history, Bush may have found that the realities and exigencies of office rendered his pre-office ideas either unachievable or in need of modification so as to garner congressional support.) If, as Singer suggests, the fact that Bush's campaign rhetoric fails to match his presidential dealings makes him immoral, then i can think of exactly no president that would be deemed moral by this criterion (Reagan? Bush Sr? Clinton?)

All in all, though, this is a solid and well-reasoned book that, contra diatribes by other anti-Bush authors, never degenerates to charged emotionalisms or slams. It is calm, rational, and meticulous. Well worth reading, whatever your position.

In this book, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, studies the ethics of President George W. Bush. More than any other President, Bush justifies his policies in terms of the fight of good against evil.

In Part 1, Singer contrasts Bush's rhetoric of opportunity with the reality of class. Bush's faith-based politics cover class-based economic policies. He claims to uphold a culture of life, while freely using the death penalty, even for mentally retarded prisoners. He opposes stem cell research, despite its contribution to prolonging life. He boasts that the USA is the freest nation on earth, despite the evidence.

In Part 2, Singer looks at Bush's international role. Claiming to uphold free trade and generous aid, Bush spends more on subsidising 25,000 US cotton growers than he provides in aid to Africa.

After 9/11, he stretched his aim from attacking Al Qa'ida to toppling the Taliban regime. Singer shows how the attack on Afghanistan was not just, because Bush rejected negotiations, so the war was not the last resort that it should have been. Nor was the war for a just cause, because it went beyond what was necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks. And he allows US forces to use interrogation methods that the State Department calls torture when other governments use them.

The war against Iraq was a diversion from the just war against Al Qa'ida, and has only increased the threat of terrorism. Pax Americana, like the old Pax Britannica, is just an endless series of imperial wars, strategically and morally wrong.

In sum, Singer shows how Bush (like his lackey Blair) uses value-talk to claim that he is moral, despite all the evidence. When his policies fail to produce the good results he predicted, he blames other, `evil', people. The worse the consequences, the more moral the rhetoric.

Finally, we should recognise that Bush's lies and confusions consistently serve the interests of the US ruling class. These interests conflict with the interests of workers everywhere, and with America's real interests, the interests of American workers, the vast majority of the American people.

The President of Good and Evil is about ethics. It takes on the task of reconstructing George W. Bush?s moral philosophy from what he has said and done, and holds this moral philosophy to close scrutiny. Singer?s purpose is the critical assessment of the President?s ethical stance, which is shared by tens of millions of Americans in a wide range of subjects.

The book?s prominent feature is the comprehensive, rational analysis of the ethical defensibility of Bush?s position. The facts and issues raised might not be novel to the informed public, which is not to say that the book is not well documented. Singer covers a vast amount of information relevant to the ethical issues addressed; he is not concerned with journalistic novelty but with the case that can be made by using what has already been properly documented.

Singer?s writing and logic are clear and straightforward. He is also very careful to asses Bush?s position from a fair standpoint, generally centering his analysis on the best case that can be made for the President?s ethical view. Singer does not confront his own utilitarian position with it, except where Bush himself has taken a seemingly utilitarian stance. The book is about Bush?s moral philosophy, not Singer?s. Most of the time, Bush seems to appeal to commonly accepted principles such as Human Rights and Just War theory, and it is in the light of them that the author builds his argument. Singer is concerned with the consistency of Bush?s ethics and the honesty of his statements, or with how these compare to Bush?s own actions. In the case of the President?s frequent appeals to faith -religious or not- he dwells on the role of reason and argument in a Democracy, not questioning this faith itself but the role we should reasonably assign to it under a democratic decision making process.

It might not be a surprise that the author often finds Bush?s positions to be indefensible. The interest, however, lies not in the conclusion but in the comprehensive and well grounded argument that Singer makes, which is especially relevant because of the broad appeal of its premises and its rigorous logic.

Unlike some recent work (eg. Michael Moore) I found Singer's work pretty fair and intelligent. Peter Singer's study of George Bush's ethics focussing on six key issues.
i) Does Bush's pro-life stance square up to his views on the death penalty?
ii) Whether Bush's infringements on civil liberties in justified in the wake of the terrorist threat.
iii) The relationship of Bush's religious faith to public policy
iv) The American attitude to global warming and its refusal to submit to the Kyoto protocol
v) Bush's approach to international aid
vi) The justification (or otherwise) of the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and Bush's role in pushing these through.

For a book whose sleeve gives the book the grandiose aim of examining "How well do the ethics of George W Bush stand up to scrutiny by one of the world's leading philosophers?" I must admit that I was not immediately impressed. One of Singer's first chapters was on the contentious issue of stem cell research (Bush is opposed to this on the grounds that human life is special and should be protected). Singer concludes (quite rightly) that Bush's views are inconsistent with his views on the death penalty and the willingness he showed in going to war and uses this inconsistency as an argument against Bush's position. However, inconsistency alone does not count as a good argument. After all, it may well be the case that on stem cell research Bush is right and he is wrong on the other two counts. I was disappointed because the whole chapter was not as result a reasoned critique but mere political mudslinging/point scoring of the "You say X but do Y variety".

After this the argument picked up, however. The rest of the book, while easily accessible, was an intelligent analysis. Particularly impressive is the even-handedness Singer shows. On two counts, these being the interaction between Bush's politics and religion and his record on international development, Singer commended Bush whilst still maintaining a general critical stance. Ranked alongside other popular books on Bush's record both nationally and internationally this book while not groundbreaking is definitely worth a read.

Peter Singer?s ?The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush? is an unabashedly anti-Bush polemic, the unavoidable consequence of Mr. Singer?s intellectual truth-telling regarding the many dichotomies apparent in Bush?s governance to date. Mr. Singer brings his philosopher?s acumen and tools to this examination of Bush?s impact, both at home and abroad.

The fact is that, across the policy board, Bush?s persona as a squeaky-clean defender of ?good? in the face of ?evil? actually conceals a far darker Hobbesian world view, one made murkier yet by discordant and often-conflicting ethics at the core. A simplest case in point regarding the ?reverence for life? in loudly pro-life Bush: his enthusiastic adoption of capital punishment even though its value as a crime deterrent has been refuted for decades. On and on the conflicts tumble out in this calm, reasoned telling of the actions and the rhetoric.

The tragedy is that these are not Bush?s ideas and attitudes at all, but rather the many neoconservative and ?Straussian? handlers who have funded and empowered Bush to their radical far-right agenda. Mose revealing is the neoconservative sourcing for their arrogance: Leo Strauss, whose mid-twentieth century philosophical views state that ?there is one kind of truth for the masses, and another for the philosophers -- that is , for those in the know.? Curiously, for this overtly Christian president who frowns at spoken ?damns? in cabinet meetings, the Straussian truth is that ?the existence of God is, at best, unprovable in any rational, scientific view of the world. But this truth should not be revealed to the masses, because religion breeds deference to the ruling classes?.? Odd that it sounds like an exact echo of the old Marxist saw about ?religion being the opiate of the masses.?

Presumably, few Bush supporters would care to look too carefully at the hodge-podge of morality that finally does equate to the sort of moral relativism that Bush says is our nation?s modern bane. Mr. Singer?s rational dissection of Bush?s rhetoric and ?Christian heart? should be on the national required reading list.