George W. Bush has increasingly referred to himself as a “War President”. Since he has started at least two Wars in his first term I don’t think that many would argue with him. Other notable War Presidents include Abraham Lincoln (The Civil War President), Woodrow Wilson (The War to End all War President), Franklin D Roosevelt (The Greatest Generation War President), Harry Truman (The Never Officially Ended War President), Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon (The It Is Not a War Presidents), Ronald Reagan (The Invade a Small Island War President), George Herbert Bush (The Gulf War War President), and Bill Clinton (The Another War in Europe War President).
Discounting entirely the Cold War and just focusing on major conflicts in the 20th Century it is hard to think about Presidents who have not been “War Presidents.” But I just don’t remember the rest of them making it a campaign slogan.
So what does George Bush mean when he says he is a War President? It seems to be his major justification, post 9/11, for focusing American energy on eliminating evil (or potential evil) that might harm us. I’m using his words “evil” on purpose to make clear that there isn’t even a hint of nuance in his thinking. America is good; those who threaten us are “evil” and should be eliminated. Throw in some talk about “crusading” and remember the Nazi’s marched through Europe with the phrase gott min uns (god is with us) on their belt buckles and is it surprising that most of the world is a little worried about us?
The other reason that Bush seems to be claiming that he is a War President is so the dismal state of the economy really can’t be blamed on him. While we struggle to energize the weakest economic recovery in twenty years it just wouldn’t be reasonable to have someone focused on War worry about the economy. But wait, the costs of the War(s) {War on Terrorism, Afghanistan, and Iraq} have to be good for at least the military industrial complex. Perhaps the “I am a War President” moniker has economic connotations like being a “borrow and spend” Republican?
War President talk bothers me in an age of constant war. The fundamental difference with the War on Terror and other conflicts is that this one will never-ever be over. I can’t help but reach way back to the Romans to think about where the concept of a “War President” finds its intellectual home.
The Romans invented the concept of a dictator, who was an extraordinary magistrate empowered to o perform tasks that could not be carried out by an ordinary ruler. While there were different flavors of dictators, one of the most well known was the dictator rei gerendea causa who was appointed in times of military emergency for six months or for the duration of the emergency (whichever was shorter). (Thanks to Wikipedia for the history refresher course.)
The Romans understood that at times power might need to be centralized allowing one individual to take extraordinary action to protect the Republic in times of great peril. But, they also realized that this time period needed to be limited. It is also important to note that dictators who were appointed for cause kept finding reasons to keep extending their terms. The best well-known dictator Julius Ceaser made his initial modifications to the concept by extending the term from a six-month maximum to one year, and then after nine consecutive terms, created the concept of a dictator perpetuus (perpetual dictator).
You see, we’ve tried this all before and it just doesn’t work out very well.
What Americans don’t ever want is a War President Perpetuus, and this is why on November 6, 2004 I’ll be voting for anyone but George W. Bush.
Zen
Comments