The One Thing Bush Does Best


Stirring a crowd is one thing. Mob politics is another. Today with his announcement that he intends to pass a Constitutional Amendment against gay and lesbian marriage, President Bush reminds us what a mob monger he is.

"I’m a uniter, not a divider," promised candidate George W. during the election of 2000, but his most effective political initiatives reveal that his most sinister political talent is to rally us against them, whoever they are.

That is why so few politicians voted against the Patriot Acts or the wars. When Bush brought these issues to the table, he did so with his singular genius for relegating the opposition into an intolerable world apart.

Now he attempts to do the same thing with gay and lesbian marriage. "If you dare to vote against this prohibition you will be counted among the forces of darkness, and we will bury your political future." That is the tone that Bush is able to strike, even if he never quite puts it that way. He has a talent for raising a mob with code words that mask naked power with righteousness.

The unforgiving tone of Bush leadership is an eerie echo of the religious fundamentalism that he purports to oppose in global politics. Even his most conservative allies, such as James K. Glassman, of the American Enterprise Institute, recognize that today’s "defense of marriage" initiative is a political invitation to energize the fundamentalists at home.

Faith-based agitation in Massachusetts, for instance, has helped to shift public opinion ten points in the direction of intolerance, reports Frank Philips of the Boston Globe. And this is Catholic, northern fundamentalism, not Protestant southern. So you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The Boston Globe story gives us another disturbing detail by reporting that the popular mood in this case demands majority rule rather than court consideration when it comes to these crucial issues of civil rights. But appeals to majority rule have usually been bad news in the history of civil rights.

Beginning with the Bill of Rights, and going all the way up to the "Defense of Congressional Pay" (Amendment Number 27), Constitutional Amendments have been put in place to protect the relatively powerless against the state and majority rule. In the case of the Congressional Pay amendment, two consecutive votes of Congress are demanded, and why? Because when you get leaders like George Bush in office, mob fervor is liable to sweep reason away.

We might demand for the American people the same protection the Congress has arranged for itself. Two consecutive votes of Congress, with an election intervening.

Only once has a Constitutional amendment been passed by a majority in order to put a minority "in its place." That was the mis-guided Prohibition amendment, the only one to be repealed.

With the call for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay and lesbian marriage, President Bush summons a new American mob, panders to fundamentalism, and reverses the tradition of constitutional amendments, initiated by the Bill of Rights. George Bush is a political animal with his back against the wall. And he has made us in his image, into a nation of claws and teeth.

GREG MOSES writes for the Texas Civil Rights Review. He can be reached at: gmosesx@prodigy.net

Weekend Edition
October 9-11, 2015
David Price – Roberto J. González
The Use and Abuse of Culture (and Children): The Human Terrain System’s Rationalization of Pedophilia in Afghanistan
Mike Whitney
Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria
Jason Hribal
The Tilikum Effect and the Downfall of SeaWorld
Paul Street
Hope in Abandonment: Cuba, Detroit, and Earth-Scientific Socialism
Gary Leupp
The Six Most Disastrous Interventions of the 21st Century
Andrew Levine
In Syria, Obama is Playing a Losing Game
Louis Proyect
The End of Academic Freedom in America: the Case of Steven Salaita
Rob Urie
Democrats, Neoliberalism and the TPP
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
The Bully Recalibrates: U.S. Signals Policy Shift in Syria
Brian Cloughley
Hospital Slaughter and the US/NATO Propaganda Machine
John Walsh
For Vietnam: Artemisinin From China, Agent Orange From America
John Wight
No Moral High Ground for the West on Syria
Robert Fantina
Canadian Universities vs. Israeli Apartheid
Conn Hallinan
Portugal: Europe’s Left Batting 1000
John Feffer
Mouths Wide Shut: Obama’s War on Whistleblowers
Paul Craig Roberts
The Impulsiveness of US Power
Ron Jacobs
The Murderer as American Hero
Alex Nunns
“A Movement Looking for a Home”: the Meaning of Jeremy Corbyn
Philippe Marlière
Class Struggle at Air France
Binoy Kampmark
Waiting in Vain for Moderation: Syria, Russia and Washington’s Problem
Paul Edwards
Empire of Disaster
Xanthe Hall
Nuclear Madness: NATO’s WMD ‘Sharing’ Must End
Margaret Knapke
These Salvadoran Women Went to Prison for Suffering Miscarriages
Uri Avnery
Abbas: the Leader Without Glory
Halima Hatimy
#BlackLivesMatter: Black Liberation or Black Liberal Distraction?
Michael Brenner
Kissinger Revisited
Cesar Chelala
The Perverse Rise of Killer Robots
Halyna Mokrushyna
On Ukraine’s ‘Incorrect’ Past
Jason Cone
Even Wars Have Rules: a Fact Sheet on the Bombing of Kunduz Hospital
Walter Brasch
Mass Murders are Good for Business
William Hadfield
Sophistry Rising: the Refugee Debate in Germany
Christopher Brauchli
Why the NRA Profits From Mass Shootings
Hadi Kobaysi
How The US Uses (Takfiri) Extremists
Pete Dolack
There is Still Time to Defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Marc Norton
The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution
Andre Vltchek
Stop Millions of Western Immigrants!
David Rosen
If Donald Dump Was President
Dave Lindorff
America’s Latest War Crime
Ann Garrison
Sankarist Spirit Resurges in Burkina Faso
Franklin Lamb
Official Investigation Needed After Afghan Hospital Bombing
Linn Washington Jr.
Wrongs In Wine-Land
Ronald Bleier
Am I Drinking Enough Water? Sneezing’s A Clue
Charles R. Larson
Prelude to the Spanish Civil War: Eduard Mendoza’s “An Englishman in Madrid”
David Yearsley
Papal Pop and Circumstance
October 08, 2015
Michael Horton
Why is the US Aiding and Enabling Saudi Arabia’s Genocidal War in Yemen?