A popular conservative concept is that we live in an 'ownership society', and it certainly has a nice ring to it. But what I doubt these Conservatives have done, is look at the root of the concept. After all, who would embrace nihilism and subjective morality while simultaneously screaming about absolute morals?
Oops, I guess we aren't supposed to mention the gaping philosophical flaw in this, the most base and most bastardized of all repugnant Republican propaganda. The concept of an ownership society where the elites make morality through practical application of power isn't a new one, in fact, it's been around forever, and while President Bush certainly has no problems taking parts of Nietzsche's philosophy publicly, perhaps it is time for him to consider the other parts: the ones which he has apparently ignored.
First, they attempted to privatize social security. They called out the traditional talking points of personal responsibility and private industry. What they didn't mention was that their plan was likely to result in quite a few pretty serious problems -- today's 416 point drop of the Dow Jones Industrial Average only further serves to illustrate that point.
However, attempting to take away some social security from our seniors wasn't enough -- the Bush Administration and their Conservative allies decided that it was necessary to go further: they had to 'fix' health care. In this case, the fix is actually worse then the current system. A rare accomplishment, because to be frank, I didn't believe that a proposed solution could manage to beat the current system in terms of absolute ineptness. I was wrong, and I admit it.
Thankfully, both attempts have been blocked.
However, this does not address the underlying issue. The base, transparent, shallow, and callous hypocrisy of what I like to call the Administration of Arrogance. It is time to take them to task for the gaping flaws in their governing philosophy.
The first flaw, is that this administration claims to see absolutes. For Mr. Bush, there is no gray area -- you are either with him, or against him. The reason that this absolute certainty is a philosophical flaw is quite simple: Mr. Bush's own administration has been quite willing to entertain those who exist in the gray area between 'with us' and 'against us' -- and they have entertained them as allies. Chalabi, Sistaini, and Musharraf among this group.
The second flaw is one that follows the first. If Mr. Bush -- and his handlers -- were truly convinced that realpolitik is the correct path to pursue, then why haven't they done so? After all, if politics was simply about applying power, then we should have already had Bin Laden: we do after all control something like one quarter of the worlds wealth, and we have one of the strongest armies on the face of the earth. How much more power do you need?
The third flaw in Mr. Bush's assessment of absolutes springs forth from the first two. Or, more specifically, it springs forth from his reliance on realpolitik combined with his own hypocritical acknowledgement of the gray area. President Bush wants to see morality set by a group of powerful men, the same way Nietzsche proposes that it always has been in his Genealogy of Morals. Furthermore, President Bush embraces Nietzsche's thoughts on power as well. The problem with this, is that Nietzsche is a big fan of the gray area: Bush is not.
President Bush has decided that he can publicly denounce the gray area, it's subjectivity, and it's nihilistic leanings while privately indulging it. The cost has been high. 3000 lives, billions of dollars, and a decline in International Standing as well as a less secure America.
It is time for Mr. Bush to accept that if we are indeed an ownership society as he claims we are, he must accept ownership of his mistakes. Otherwise, I will continue to do what I always do when the ownership talking points come out: laugh hysterically at his hypocrisy, and then wonder why he hasn't been impeached yet.