The Faith that Supports U.S. Violence:
The Faith that Supports U.S. Violence:
In the second year of the
Many see it, too, as the only national state that wages perpetual war for the global good. From starting a war to setting aside the prohibitions of international law and morality, the U.S. is entitled to do, beyond its borders, what it wants when it wants, provided the action can be justified in utilitarian terms of saving American lives and the U.S. Congress goes along with it.2
Whether we call this absolute veneration of "America" national essentialism or millennialism, whether we see it as the outlook of a superpower or the prerogative of a self-designated Chosen People, at its root lies "the belief that [American] history, under divine guidance, will bring about the triumph of Christian principles" and eventually the emergence of "a holy utopia."3 Such faith in the unique moral destiny of the
Long before the birth of the Republic, ideas of chosenness have been at the heart of a complicated ideology of rule that has resonated powerfully in American society.4 Both the Puritan Calvinists of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Protestant millenarians of the early 19th century conceived of the
Today no single millenarian ideology exists, but rather a spectrum of religious and secular thought in which biblical ideas of a "conquering Chosen People" and visions of the United States as God's model of the world's future appear prominently.6 Just as in the past, these ideas link directly to the apocalyptic "defining moment," in which a small group of leaders at the top of society summon the people to fulfill some sacred mission of redemption, or to play a new global role for the sake of humanity.7
Usually, the decisive moments occur when the president announces the mission or proclaims the godly mandate, regardless of whether the community is actually under threat. At such times, secular and religious millenarianism can generate support for policies of imperialism and war, or for advancing democratic ideals in the process of overcoming enemies.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, politicians repeatedly used different forms of this messianic national faith to justify killing Indians and acquiring their land, conquering Mexicans, and taking over the continent. In the 20th century they used it to establish a foothold in
Economic greed, racial superiority, the blind ambition of leaders, and their desire to dominate other lands and peoples remained their own justifications for killing, but invariably the civil religion concealed these baser motives. Through over two-hundred years of expansion, belief in Americans as the Chosen People, morally superior to others, has reigned, enabling
For the past four years President George W. Bush has followed a line of chief executives who, for reasons of power and dominion, harkened back to the Old Testament theme of the Chosen People. But few earlier presidents made a Zen-like claim to "moral clarity" their guide for policy, or acted on the world scene with such open contempt for international law and democracy. Bush and his top ideologues have carried religious Manicheanism and the powers of the imperial presidency to new levels. In the process, they have not only violated international law but trampled on the U.S. Constitution, and turned
Neither religious conviction nor bigotry drove them to these acts. But for reasons for domestic politics and their (Congressionally unsupervised) control of huge military forces, Bush and his cohorts chose to do them while posturing about God, American values, and the unique American mission to lead the world. Right after a group of radical Islamic killers attacked the United States, Bush went out of his way to make gestures of tolerance toward "good" (non-Christian hating) Muslims and to deny that his "war on terrorism" was a crusade or a holy war. These acts were designed to allay fear in the Muslim community while insulating him from liability based on the speech and actions of subordinates who would have de facto authority for actually waging the holy crusade. Bush's public posturing right after 9/11, in short, illustrated the double message that his administration sent out for the remainder of his term: formally endorse one set of rules, values, and policies for the record; secretly establish different norms, values, and policies for daily operations.
In January 2001, in his first inaugural address, Bush introduced the theme of the U.S. taking on an "axis of evil," and suggested that God operated through the people of the U.S. to achieve His purpose.10 Although Bush was using the expressions of his speech writer, they overlapped with his own sense of the world divided between warring powers of absolute good and evil.
At West Point, on June 1, 2002, eight months after the start of his first war, in Afghanistan, Bush increased the targets of his "war on terrorism" to "sixty or more countries," and declared that "moral clarity" was essential to our victory in the Cold War" and now, once again, "We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will . . . lead the world in opposing" "evil and lawless regimes."11 "[O]ur security will require transforming the military. . . that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our Security will require all Americans to be . . . ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." He went on to note that this would mean maintaining "military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."
These lines, from the strategy articulated in 1992 by deputy undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, would soon be enshrined in the administration's "National Security Strategy" (September 2002). The latter document made "preventive war" official state doctrine by proclaiming to the world that the U.S. would, whenever and wherever it chose, act unconstrained by international law.
Two years later White House, Justice Department, and Pentagon lawyers informed him that he could authorize his underlings to order the use of torture during the interrogation of prisoners or detainees under American control, something they were already doing in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.12 Shortly afterward, on March 19-20, 2003, Bush started his second colonial war, attacking without provocation the sovereign state of Iraq, which had already been crucially weakened through a decade of the harshest UN economic sanctions ever mandated and posed no threat to any state, let alone the U.S. The war, launched in the teeth of strong opposition at home and historically unprecedented worldwide protests, was in clear violation of the UN and Nuremberg Charters and the U.S. Constitution, which gives no president or congress the power to wage "anticipatory" or "preventive" war absent real, imminent threat.
After easily overthrowing the Baathist government in
One year after Bush staged his "mission accomplished," victory-photo opportunity on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln (
In the course of waging the "war against terror" American military forces committed (and continue to commit) large-scale, systemic human rights abuses against Muslims that qualify, under
From the prison cages of
Up and down the military and civilian chains of command, in the upper echelons of the Pentagon and on the ground, the evidence accumulates of stonewalling and lying to prevent the disclosure of incriminating facts, professional negligence, malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, and dereliction of duty. The evidence reveals not only that a minority of individual
Overwhelming evidence suggests, further, that the American state has been guilty of massive, repeated violations of customary international law, treaty law, and federal statute. Specifically, the U.S. bears responsibility to the international community for having violated: the 1949 Geneva Conventions; the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Statutes of the UN international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; Article 7 (1) of the 1998 International Criminal Court Statute; and the 1994 Torture Convention Implementation Act (18 U.S.C. 2340 A). All six laws criminalize torture.
Many high-level members of the Bush administration and officials working in the "Office of the Secretary of Defense" were involved in these grave breaches of law and their cover-up. But under the doctrine of direct and imputed command responsibility the heaviest individual culpability accrues to commander-in-chief Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Both acted on the premise that the end (intelligence) justifies the means (torture). Bush, whose "razor-sharp distinction of the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' . . . filtered down the ranks," bears primary responsibility for issuing the orders and creating the ethical climate that condoned the torture of detainees.15 Rumsfeld approved not only the criminal policies establishing the U.S. global torture system but also some of the actual techniques used by lower-ranking military and CIA personnel to inflict pain.16 Their offenses cry out for criminal prosecution and appropriate punishment.
What needs to be understood here is how various right-wing social movements came together to re-energize the dangerous myth of the United States as a special nation, destined to reign militarily supreme over all others, and how those radical movements influenced this outcome. Focusing on the convergence of
Let us see, then, how the Bush administration came to launch the biggest assault on international law, politics, and morality since the
When the defeat of Germany and Japan left the United States with a nearly global empire in the wake of World War II, many Americans saw in the new reality confirmation of their uniqueness: victory had proven them morally superior not just to defeated enemies but to all nations. Through occupation reforms the
At that point, most American journalists, feeling, quite correctly, they had done a better job than their Japanese counterparts in reporting the war in Asia and the Pacific, turned to cover the big post-surrender stories and never bothered to reflect on the lies and exaggerations in the war news they had produced and disseminated to the U.S. public. Correspondents had all but ignored the story of U.S. war supplies to Japan down to July 1939; they obfuscated the brutality and corruption of Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist regime in China; they whipped up racist propaganda about Japanese-Americans on the West coast; they meekly complied with the government's suppression of news about the magnitude of the Pearl Harbor disaster; and they reported on the atomic bomb project in ways that elicited uncritical public support. When the moment of victory finally arrived, they looked down on Japanese journalists but failed to reflect on their own relationship to state power, and on how easy it had been for them as journalists to become government PR men, giving their primary loyalty to
Unsurprisingly, the victor retained intact its own virulent civic religion and showed little inclination to question its practice of war-making. Had Americans paid closer attention to the phenomenon of religiously-grounded nationalist ideology, and what happens to nations that act on the premise that they are chosen people, morally superior to others, they might have found the Japanese experience instructive, and been less eager to fight wars of conquest.
In the course of constructing a modern state,
Although lacking in universality and the strong apocalyptic vision found in
Thus from the start,
In short, with the empire repeatedly embroiled in incidents and wars from the late 1920s onward, Japanese identified their nation-state with the emperor, just as many Americans today view themselves as the Chosen People and look down on others. Japanese were taught to believe in their own moral superiority, and to take pride in bringing enlightenment and other valuable gifts to backward peoples. Americans are still taught these things. And when they encounter resistance from strongly entrenched nationalism in the countries they invade, as the Japanese did in
During the ten years that elapsed between the 1931 Japanese military coup in Manchuria and the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, military and civil officials used the ideology of national essentialism to reshape Japanese political life and validate war. Drawing on sacred national texts, army, navy, and Ministry of Education propagandists used the throne and emperor worship to justify campaigns of domestic "purification" and the waging of foreign wars. The emperor wielded the official teaching to validate war and strengthen his own control over the military. He and the ruling elites were also at one in wanting to maintain their power at home and rid
In 1939, when Germany started World War II in Europe, the "holy war" that Japanese soldiers had been told they were fighting in China was reinterpreted as a war for "universal brotherhood," designed to extend the emperor's "benevolent rule" and "benevolent heart" to all the oppressed peoples of Asia. After December 1941, it was presented as a war for "eternal peace in the Orient." If today this propaganda sounds absurd to us, it is no more absurd than the American tradition of equating the nation-state and chosenness, or the lies that the Bush administration uses to justify external and internal wars on the "ism" of terror.
Few of the three million Japanese who went to their deaths during the Asia-Pacific War ever questioned their country's right to lead
In the wake of World War II, conflicts emerged with the
Exclusive possession of a stockpile of doomsday weapons and the bombers to deliver them strengthened evangelical belief in the power of the U.S. and its duty to set the world aright.18 The Truman administration had dropped the Bomb "not only to end a bloody war but also to display its awesome power and so to alter and reshape the postwar world to come."19 Most Americans thought the use of atomic bombs against
Helping to offset such fears, at least in the eyes of most Americans, were the judicial actions taken at the first international war crimes trials against German and Japanese war leaders between 1946 and 1949. Contemporaries assessed both events in the same context of messianic yearning for a better world that came with the ending of the war. But did the trials at
Thanks partly to the way that
Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the tribunal's sole convening authority, was intent on preventing war responsibility from being attributed to the emperor and avoiding any international adjudication of Japan's chemical and biological warfare in China. He was equally concerned to protect the
The Allied powers in
In the end,
President Harry Truman, the first "Dictator of Human Destiny,"25 saw himself as a crusader for freedom and against evil, which in practice meant against any nation that entertained geopolitical ambitions and refused to accept a subordinate relationship to the U.S. As he embarked on fighting the Cold War against the
From Truman forward, for over forty years, politicians and foreign policy elites sold the Cold War to the American people as one of history's greatest religious crusades, "a global conflict between the god-fearing [Christians] and the godless [Communists]."27 But until the presidency of John F. Kennedy (1960-63), the American people had not been fully mobilized to fight this great ideological crusade for what he called "Freedom under God versus ruthless, godless tyranny."28 The hawkish but cool Kennedy and his liberal advisers, starting with Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, were the first to turn
In 1961-62, Kennedy's anti-communist crusaders moved beyond Eisenhower's policy of backing state terrorist regimes in Latin America and "South Vietnam" to a more active fostering of outright military dictatorships and deploying U.S. special forces abroad.29 Around the same time, his administration set the CIA to work teaching domestic spying and torture techniques to the police forces of U.S. client regimes around the world. The CIA method of "no touch torture," applied in
In 1963, the last year of Kennedy's presidency, civil rights leader Martin Luther King led a march on
What is so striking is not King's reiteration of the "old dream" or his positive message of Christian humility and non-violent resistance to oppression, or even his sense that blacks were a chosen "people" just like the ancient Israelites. Rather it is that King turned the higher morality against its White claimants while sounding the themes of American greatness and exceptionalism. Who could resist such rhetoric? Not the privileged power-holders who believed "
A few months earlier, police in
Overnight King became a liberal hero. But liberal sentiment cooled when he continued to speak for the poor and oppressed, called for economic justice, and in 1967 finally joined other black leaders who had already been speaking out against the Vietnam War. By the time of King's assassination in 1968, while en route to lead another march on
Following in Kennedy's footsteps, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson escalated the
Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter took office aspiring to be a peace president. A born-again Evangelical Christian, he had earlier "organized an 'American Fighting Men's Day' and exhorted the citizens of
Carter extended to the oil-rich states of the Persian Gulf the Monroe Doctrine, with its implication of future, "single-power" American supremacy in the Middle East as in the Western hemisphere.36 Connecting with voters by constantly evoking God, the Bible, and his own religious beliefs, Carter fixed religion more firmly at the center of public discourse.
Once in office Reagan invoked for Americans John
During the 1980s, cold war hatreds and the bipolar vision of the world, which sustained such hatreds, were waning. Reagan tried to reverse these trends by bringing the nation back to the 1950s. He re-labeled the Soviet Union "the evil empire" and inaugurated a new round of investment in nuclear weapons and missiles, including the Star Wars Programs.38 John F. Kennedy, who had started the outright U.S. aggression in Vietnam and accelerated the nuclear arms race, was Reagan's model; and it was Kennedy's precedents that Reagan followed in his massive peacetime military build-up and his aggressive targeting of third-world nations.39 Reagan's "war on terrorism" aimed mainly at aiding "death squads" and assisting authoritarian governments in suppressing the rise of popular nationalist movements in tiny Latin American and Caribbean countries: Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
The ending of the ideological cold war in 1989 and the unexpected collapse of the
With American leaders free to operate in a world without military rivals, the most hawkish of the geopolitical planners -- the secular ideologues who proudly called themselves neo-conservatives -- pondered how to construct an international order that would insure permanent American domination of the planet. They focused on overthrowing foreign governments that still defied American power, especially in regions of enormous strategic value like the
The messianic-millenarian spirit in U.S. foreign policy gained strength from the short "humanitarian war" that President George W. H. Bush waged against Iraq in 1990-1, and the many self-declared "humanitarian interventions" that Bill Clinton ordered during the 1990s against weak, impoverished states. Both presidents contributed to making people in the
John R. Bolton of the American Enterprise Institute, soon to be appointed by presidential candidate George W. Bush as an undersecretary of state, and Condoleeza Rice, a born-again Christian, whom Bush, two years earlier, had tapped to be his foreign policy advisor, hinted in 2000 at what lay ahead: the advent of unabashed unilateralism supported by a resurgent moralism.
Rice, in her article in the Jan/Feb. 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, was equally contemptuous of international law. She claimed that in the pursuit of its national security the
By the time the Republican Party took over the presidency (2001) and later both houses of Congress, the conditions for a new period of American military intervention were in place. In early 2001, the ideological extremists whom Bush brought to power set about implementing a version of international order based on their unquestioned belief in
The Bush administration inaugurated an era in which the
The ground for this takeover of government in the
By the late-1990s the
Congress abetted this corporate corruption through legislative deregulation (specifically, the complete repeal of New Deal-era financial regulation), and the granting of protection from liability lawsuits to large, well-connected firms like Halliburton. Meanwhile, at the state level legislatures enacted the anti-people agendas of the big corporations with consequences detrimental to the public good. In
Yet another development along the path to war that followed
These were also the Bible belt states, marked by special forms of a vague yet distinctive religious culture.44 Here flourished the worldview of tens of millions of Bible "literalists," "conservative fundamentalists," and "millenarians." The literalists believe in a literal interpretation of scripture as do the conservative fundamentalists. Both tend toward Manichaean thinking but the latter are also at odds with certain principles of modern science, and more focused on a catastrophic end-time struggle between the forces of good and evil. Their mind-set is particularly supportive of moral crusades, patriarchalism, and militarism. The "millenarians" await the second coming of Jesus but have different views of the millennium and the forms it will take. They are both blacks and whites, this-worldly and other-worldly, liberals opposed to Bush as well as conservatives who fervently support him.
Concurrent to the rise of the South, Western states also experienced a significant population increase at the expense of
By 1994, when this process of demographic change was reaching full force, "aggressively conservative" white Southerners controlled virtually all the key leadership positions in the House of Representatives.46 And the ideas of conservative whites and neo-conservative thinkers -- core supporters of the Republican Party that westerners like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan reinvented by exploiting racism and bigotry -- dominated the nation's political discourse.47 Republicans and Democrats alike embraced the notion that the U.S. had a God-given mission to spread its values, promote its corporate interests, and establish its military presence everywhere.
Over the next six years, the rightward shift of
In December 2000 the conservative Supreme Court selected as president the candidate with the hidden past who had clearly failed to win a majority of the popular vote. The "born-again" evangelical Christian, George W. Bush, like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the other Reaganites he gathered around him, set out to transform the international order, confident that forging common understandings with allies was no longer necessary. A few days after the inauguration, at his very first National Security Council meeting, Bush made "regime change" in
Bush laid out his Administration's response when he vowed before Congress (
Denied the facts needed to assess the situation and constantly misinformed by their government and the corporate mass media, they easily swallowed the lies that were the Administration's main justification for its policy of regime change in
In today's quasi-wartime environment, Bush continues to pursue a fraudulent crusade to "rid the world of evil." He claims that God "called" him to run for president and "to strike at al-Qaeda" and Saddam Hussein. He lards his speeches with religious rhetoric, talks repeatedly of "God's will," "God's Master Plan," the "American mission," saving and destroying "souls."55 He aggressively woos religious groups, a key part of his electoral base. His re-election campaign focuses especially on the conservative Christian churches, encouraging pastors and ministers to enroll their "flocks" in support of the "values" represented by the Republican cause.56 All the while he and his circle spread messianic nationalist myths and lie to the public with persistence and clarity.
Until the Abu Ghraib torture photos and videos, roughly half the nation, including many who are either among the least informed or the most misinformed of social and political realities, still gave tacit support to Bush's domestic and foreign policy agendas.57 Public polls indicate this is changing, as more Americans perceive the consequences of his disastrous policies in Iraq and Central Asia and the consequences of his fiscal and welfare policies at home.
Nevertheless, Bush still retains the loyalty of his natural constituents -- conservative Christians, political reactionaries, and corporate millionaires who profit most from his tax cuts. He even benefits from the fake "alliance" of convenience between the religious fringe groups: specifically, those neo-conservative evangelicals, who see in the birth and growth of Israel the fulfillment of biblical prophecy leading to the second coming of Christ, and Jewish fundamentalists who also anticipate the arrival of the "messiah" once all of biblical Israel has been "reclaimed" from the Palestinians.
Millenarianism in the G.W. Bush era is an essential part of
During the presidency of George W. Bush the neo-conservative quest for global domination through unprovoked, preventive war found its stride. Government attention turned away from real problems of worsening global and domestic poverty, environmental havoc, and proliferating weapons of mass destruction. Bold assertions of
1. Raymond Aron, "History and Politics," in Politics and history: Selected Essays by Ramond Aron, Transl. by Miriam B. Conant (New York: The Free Press, 1978), p. 239.
2. Lawyers working for the chief agencies of the executive branch recently expressed this as the notion of a president's "inherent constitutional authority," as commander-in-chief, to set aside the laws of war, order torture, and do anything else he wants in waging war.
3. Ernest Lee Tuveson, Redeemer Nation: The Idea of
4. Ronald A. Wells, "Religion in American National Life: What Went Wrong," The Mennnonite Quarterly Review, Vol. 65, No. 2 (1991), p. 124.
5. Clifford Longley, "The Religious Roots of American Imperialism," Global Dialogue, Vol. 5, Nos. 1-2 (Winter-Spring 2003) p. 41.
6. For the term "conquering Chosen People," see Francis Jennings, The Creation of America: Through Revolution to Empire (
7. Tuveson, Redeemer Nation; also see Bush's speech at
8. Clifford Longley,
9. Longley, "The Religious Roots of American Imperialism," Global Dialogue, Vol. 5, Nos. 1-2 (Winter/Spring 2003), p. 41.
10. Bush's words, as quoted by Longley (Ibid., p. 41), were: "Much time has passed since
11. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/prints/200206.
12. Wall Street Journal,
13. Lisa Ashkenaz Croke, "American Lawyer Finds New Evidence of Recent Torture in
14. Duncan Campbell and Suzanne Goldenberg, "They said this is
15. Matthew Gutman, "Analysis: Will Rolling Heads Crush Rebellion, or
16. Josh White, "Methods Used on 2 at
17. The political yonaoshi (setting the world right) tradition also contained millenarian beliefs but had died out at the end of the 19th century. The Nichiren sect of Buddhism as well as Zen, which encouraged action based on intuition, mainly influenced Japanese military officers during the 1920s and '30s. In 1931 Staff Officer Ishiwara Kanji, a devotee of the Nichiren sect, masterminded
18. Robert Jewett and John S. Lawrence, Captain
19. Robert Jay Lifton, Superpower Syndrome:
20. Jonathan A. Bush, "The 'Supreme Crime' and Its Origins: The Lost Legislative History of the Crime of Aggressive War,"
21. Timothy Brook, "The
22. H. Bruce Franklin, War Stars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), p. 109.
23. Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian (New York: Marlowe & Co., 1995), from "Smithsonian Script," p. 14.
24. Winston P. Nagan, "Nuclear Arsenals, International Lawyers, and the Challenge of the Millennium," Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1999), p. 487.
25. The term comes from American science fiction of the period before and during World War I. Truman, then "a young
26. First to become actively involved was the anti-Semitic Pius XII. Truman next tried unsuccessfully to mobilize Protestant leaders of the World Council of Churches in a "religious anti-communist front" against the
27. Kirby, p. 35.
28. Richard J. Walton, Cold War and Counter-Revolution: The Foreign Policy of John F. Kennedy (Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1972), p. 9.
29. "Six military coups overthrew popular regimes during the Kennedy years," notes Noam Chomsky, "ten more later; in several cases, Kennedy Administration policies contributed materially to the outcome." See his Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and
30. Alfred W. McCoy, "The Long Shadow of CIA Torture Research," in Counterpunch, Weekend Edition (May 29/31, 2004), available at http://www.counterpunch.org/mccoy05292004.html; Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (Boston: South End Press, 1979), pp. 26-28.
31. Noam Chomsky, Rethinking Camelot.
34. Timothy L. H. McCormack, "Their Atrocities and Our Misdemeanors: The Reticence of States to Try Their 'Own Nationals' for International Crimes," in Mark Lattimer and Philippe Sands, eds, Justice for Crimes Against Humanity (
35. Michael McClintock, Instruments of Statecraft:
36. See Martti Koskenniemi on the generalization of Monroeism in his, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002), p. 415.
37. Edward R. Schaffer, "The Myth of American Exceptionalism and Global Peace," in Jurgen Kleist & Bruce A. Butterfield, eds., Mythology: From Ancient to Post-Modern (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1992), p. 91.
38. Niels Thorsen, "American Religion and the Idea of Unprecedented Violence," American Studies in
39. On Kennedy. see Chomsky, Rethinking Camelot, p. 2 and the documentation that he presents throughout the study.
40. Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival:
41. Robert Pollin, Contours of Descent:
42. John R. Bolton, "Is There Really 'Law' in International Affairs?" Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 10/1 (Spring 2000).
43. Michael Lind, Made in
44. Charles Reagan Wilson, "The Southern Religious Culture: Distinctiveness and Social Change," Amerikastudien, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1993), pp. 360-367.
45. On the rise of the new right in the West see Richard White, 'It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own': A History of the American West (Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1991), pp. 601-611; Alan Brinkley, "The Problem of American Conservatism," American Historical Review, Vol. 99, No. 2 (April 1994), pp. 417-418.
46. Earl Black and Merle Black, The Rise of Southern Republicans (
47. Black and Black, pp. 398-399.
48. Reuters, Security Watch,
49. Lifton, Superpower Syndrome, p. 3.
50. Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside
51. Cited in Allison Ehlert, "
52. David Rose, "Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for
54. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush used the phrase "wonder-working power," "an allusion to an evangelical Christian song." See Chris Mooney, "W.'s Christian nation; how Bush promotes religion and erodes the separation of church and state," The American Prospect, v. 14 (June 2003), p. 34 (4).
55. As reported by the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, at the Aqaba Summit in early June 2003, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas alleged that Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." Posted at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788
56. David D. Kirkpatrick, "Bush Allies Till Fertile Soil, Among Baptists, for Votes," New York Times (
57. Mary Leonard, "Bush presses funding for faith groups," The Boston Globe (
58. Jim Lobe, private communication; also see "What a Tangled Web the Neocons Weave," Dec. 23, 2003, available at http://antiwar.com. Lobe's many excellent articles on the neo-cons and Bushite policy may be read on Alternet and Inter Press Service.
Herbert Bix is a professor of history and sociology at the
(c) Herbert P. Bix