Morality Ethics President Bush

¶ … morality of the George Bush administration. The writer looks at classic texts to garner a sense of what political morality should be about and then holds the administration of Bush against the measurement to illustrate the lack of morality and the fact that it failed to promote the happiness of the United States people. In addition, the author explores the negative impact that was felt by other nations under the watchful lack of morality by the Bush administration.

According to the Two Treatises by Locke political power has no other purpose than for the greater good. He wrote that it was the right to make decisions and laws but that it was always and should only be for the greater good of the people that it served.

"Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good

This passage clearly indicates that the greater good is to be first and foremost in any political decision with regard to all things including the death of others. This can be applied to war, to domestic issues or to international issues that need to be handled. The importance of the greater good cannot be stressed enough when it comes to political morality and ethics

Political morality and ethics belong to those who are just and ethical. Experts since the beginning time have subscribed to this theory. Plato wrote in the Republic that if one man is as unjust as can be while the other is as just as can be and they are both allowed to go to the extreme, then and only then will the true ethical nature and moral nature of each man will appear

"Let him be the best of men, and let him be thought the worst; then he will have been put to the proof; and we shall see whether he will be affected by the fear of infamy and its consequences. And let him continue thus to the hour of death; being just and seeming to be unjust. When both have reached the uttermost extreme, the one of justice and the other of injustice, let judgment be given which of them is the happier of the two

The above illustrates the problem with the Bush administration. The administration showed itself to lack ethics and claim it had morality while using the American's fear of terrorism to promote Bush's private vendetta against his father's political enemies.

In Machiavelli's The Prince, he outlines the way a political figure gains power without his underlings or "subjects" being aware of it occurring.

"Nothing makes a prince so much esteemed as great enterprises and setting a fine example. We have in our time Ferdinand of Aragon, the present King of Spain. He can almost be called a new prince, because he has risen, by fame and glory, from being an insignificant king to be the foremost king in Christendom; and if you will consider his deeds you will find them all great and some of them extraordinary

. In the beginning of his reign he attacked Granada, and this enterprise was the foundation of his dominions. He did this quietly at first and without any fear of hindrance, for he held the minds of the barons of Castile occupied in thinking of the war and not anticipating any innovations; thus they did not perceive that by these means he was acquiring power and authority over them

. He was able with the money of the Church and of the people to sustain his armies, and by that long war to lay the foundation for the military skill which has since distinguished him. Further, always using religion as a plea, so as to undertake greater schemes, he devoted himself with a pious cruelty to driving out and clearing his kingdom of the Moors; nor could there be a more admirable example, nor one more rare. Under this same cloak he assailed Africa, he came down on Italy, he has finally attacked France; and thus his achievements and designs have always been great, and have kept the minds of his people in suspense and admiration and occupied with the issue of them. And his actions have arisen in such a way, one out of the other, that men have never been given time to work steadily against him

According to the doctrine written by him a political figure or in this case a prince is also respected when he declares himself fully to a party or a side.

'A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that to say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favor of one party against the other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral; because if two of your powerful neighbors come to blows, they are of such a character that, if one of them conquers, you have either to fear him or not. In either case it will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to make war strenuously; because, in the first case, if you do not declare yourself, you will invariably fall a prey to the conqueror, to the pleasure and satisfaction of him who has been conquered, and you will have no reasons to offer, nor anything to protect or to shelter you

. Because he who conquers does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of trial; and he who loses will not harbor you because you did not willingly, sword in hand, court his fate

In no way however, does this writing support the lack of morality or ethics that was shown by the Bush administration.

"A prince ought also to show himself a patron of ability, and to honor the proficient in every art. At the same time he should encourage his citizens to practice their callings peaceably, both in commerce and agriculture, and in every other following, so that the one should not be deterred from improving his possessions for fear lest they be taken away from him or another from opening up trade for fear of taxes; but the prince ought to offer rewards to whoever wishes to do these things and designs in any way to honor his city or state."

This means or implies that the head should be able to honor those that support him. He must conduct himself with upstanding morals and ethics if he is to be respected by those he leads and makes decisions for.

The Bush administration lacked ethics and morals in many areas of the American life. Bush used the American public to promote war. He knew there was a chance of a terrorist attack before it happened and instead of warning the public, some experts believe he allowed it to happen with little regard to the outcome so that he could use the fear of terrorism to gain American support for his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein.

Bush showed himself to be lacking ethics and morals in many of the decisions he made and that lack of ethics or morals created an atmosphere of unhappiness in the American public that elected him to office.

'For an evangelical Christian, George W. Bush does not seem to have a well-developed sense of sin -- at least as far as the nation is concerned. In his speech, President Bush expressed a far-reaching commitment to "liberty" and "the force of human freedom" in the world -- values that most Americans, religions or not, would readily affirm. The president has often rightly acknowledged that "freedom" is a gift from God, not the possession of any nation. But his remarkable speech announced that the role of deciding if, when, and where freedom will be defended belongs to the United States of America; America is on a religious mission to protect freedom, and George Bush is freedom's vicar

"In the Bush speech there was no acknowledgement of contradictions, double standards, or even limitations. The richest and most powerful nation in the world announced the right to define and defend freedom's cause. The only remaining superpower now claims the ability to be the arbiter of freedom around the world -- intervention in Iraq, for instance, but not in Rwanda

. Neoconservatives are tingling with excitement to see their expansionist view of U.S. power in the world so enshrined (and all dissenters removed from the Cabinet). But as Stephen Hayes of the neocon magazine The Weekly Standard said on NBC's Meet the Press, "I think you have to be practical about these things at the same time." Oh yes, "practical, and therein lies the rub. And the Bush administration will decide what practical means.

Will democratic reformers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt start getting encouraging calls from the White House and the feudal Arab regimes that trample freedom and liberty start getting pressure? What about Pakistan or the Asian dictators who have signed up to support the United States in the war on terrorism as we look the other way while human rights are abused in their countries? Will Israel finally be held accountable for the daily humiliation of every Palestinian at military checkpoints in the West Bank and Gaza

MOST IMPORTANT, IF the war in Iraq is the "practical" expression of George Bush's theology of liberty and freedom, the world is in serious trouble. A war justified with falsehoods, conceived in confusion, and carried out in arrogance has now degenerated into chaos. Yet the war's neoconservative defenders still cite Iraq as the archetypal action in America's mission of freedom

Bush's claim that the war in Iraq is about freedom is nothing more than a smokescreen to the public to hide the fact that he is using millions of dollars in American tax dollars to promote the attack against political figures who did not get along with his father. His quest for personal vendetta has failed to provide the happiness that he promised the American people when he took office.

"If Iraq is the best example of the Bush doctrine, pre-emptive and mostly unilateral war has become the preferred means of defending freedom. Many have rightly pointed out that having a mission of freedom is not a new idea in American history. But John Winthrop's "city on a hill" points more to a strategy of leading by example. America's slow and steady progress toward freedom and human rights for all its citizens has indeed had a profound influence on the cause of liberty around the world. In contrast to Winthrop, Bush offers a rocket launcher on a hill

The Bush doctrine means new threats toward Syria, Iran, and any other regime that doesn't toe the U.S. line. Even democratic reformers in those countries worry about becoming new victims of the U.S. mission. Ugly Saudi despots rich in oil and friendships with the Bush family likely will be exempt while the civilian populations of other repressive regimes will suffer most from U.S. military action. There has still been almost no serious media discussion of tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan

In 1993, the Clinton Administration placed troops in Mogadishu to disarm warlord Muhammad One of the most obvious indicators that Bush lacked moral and ethics was his decision to go to war in Iraq.

'Simply calling President Bush's attack on Iraq a just war does not make it so. In fact, as you should well know, this situation fails every test of just war doctrine.

Bush's failure to comport with just war doctrine has been pointed out by nearly every authority on the subject, including the Pope and most religious leaders. In declaring this a "just war," the editorial board not only assumes a greater moral authority than the Pope, but declares its own perception of morality in this regard to be not only at odds with, but superior to, the teachings of St. Augustine and the innumerable scholars who have studied and refined the Just War Doctrine over the last 1,500-plus years. That's rather arrogant, even for the Wisconsin State Journal, don't you think?

" 'If George W. Bush were a judge, and if Saddam Hussein were a common criminal brought before him, Bush would be duty-bound to recuse himself from the case. Bush himself has said on record that "given the opportunity I would take [Hussein] out, because he tried to kill my dad." As it is, Bush is judge, jury and executioner over Saddam Hussein, and it doesn't look as if he will step aside any time soon. The American system of checks and balances has failed. In opposition to how our system of government was designed, we have given unlimited war powers to one man, and we can do nothing to stop it

This creates an atmosphere for a non-scrupled politician such as Bush to use his power to pursue personal goals instead of the good of the whole or the greater good has been suggested by many political philosophers to show morality and ethics.

Some experts point to other moral and ethical issues that the Bush administration deals with to illustrate the lack of moral or ethical strength. The American public is no longer happy, Bin Laden is still out there, and Bush is quickly losing favor with those who were supportive only a short while ago. This can be attributed to Bush's failure to follow even the most basic of ethical or moral standards when it comes to the political arena

Even if one leaves the war out of the equation, Bush fails miserably when it comes to the moral or ethical barometer of politics. He leans so obviously toward conservative, Christian beliefs that he makes it clear there is no room for diversity in his mind. This is interesting considering this nation was founded on the right to religious freedom

"G.W. even claimed his favorite political philosopher was Jesus Christ, hardly a "subliminal" nod to the Christian Coalition types. Bush isn't likely to pick a real political philosopher like James Madison, whom Bush believes invented the light bulb. In fact, Jesus is probably the only "philosopher" G.W. knows by name."

(Bush http://politics.7gen.com/impeach-bush-2004/)

One of the greatest acts of disservice that has been done to the American public by Bush is the way he made the nation look to the rest of the world.

"Truth has been hijacked to serve a megalomaniacal agenda. That whole nations are being trampled in a zeal for expressing political might. That the U.S. image in the world is being smeared by the very people who are leading this country. That their actions are unconstitutional, immoral, and criminal. In short, they deserve worse than being voted out of office, they deserve to be impeached and many ought to be in jail.