The Psycho-Epistemological Connection between the Foreign and Domestic Policies of the Bush Administration

by Eric J. Lakits

Wednesday, June 26, 2002

On September 11, 2002, the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the ultimate symbols of capitalism in America, were attacked and destroyed.  On July 10, capitalism again became victim of attack, but this time from those who are supposed to defend and protect it -- our Federal Government.  After hearing the statements made by President Bush, one can analyze both the foreign and domestic policies of the current administration and readily observe how they are consistent with each other. Both consist of knee-jerk reactions about concrete particulars, without regard to any wider abstractions, and both involve sacrificing the interests of American ideals and the abrogation of principles.  But more revealing is in what way the two are different, albeit entirely related -- related in a way that offers a profound glimpse into Bush's psycho-epistemology.

Let us focus first on the foreign policy.  In the months since September 11, this policy has consisted of fighting terrorism while building coalitions with the nations that sponsor it, condemning Israel for acting in self-defense, treating Yasar Arafat -- a murderous dictator -- as if he were a diplomat, and the absurd attempt to insure security at home by establishing more government bureaucracies rather than eliminate the source of the threat by declaring war against Iran, Iraq and all the other nations who make terrorism possible.

At the outset, it appeared as if President Bush would reverse a decades -- long trend of appeasing the nations who have enacted war against the civilized nations of the west.  Following the act of war on September 11, he launched a campaign against Afghanistan and declared that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea represented an "Axis of Evil."  However, not only did he balk at this admonition, he went so far as to contradict it.  His policy now consists of helping to create an independent Palestine state, making allies with Pakistan, and declaring that there is not enough evidence to engage in a preemptive strike against Iraq and other terrorist nations.  The latter is a complete evasion of facts on not just one, but two accounts.  First, the citing of a lack of evidence amounts to ignoring decades of terrorist acts of war.  Second, the implication that a military campaign on our part would be preemptive amounts to ignoring the fact that we are acting in retaliation -- there is nothing preemptive about it.

As the Commander in Chief of our country, the interests of The United States should be Bush's foremost concern.  Defending these interests requires that one recognize who are allies are, who are enemies are, and to aid the former while eliminating the latter.  In particular, it requires that one recognize Israel's right to exist, that one recognize who threatens that right, and that one recognize that Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are our enemies.  But this would also require Bush to show bias toward Western values in general and The United States in particular.  Instead, Bush prefers to appear unbiased by distancing himself from Israel and treating our enemies and Israel's enemies as if they are potential friends.  By distancing himself in this manner and refusing to offend our enemies, Bush fakes reality and betrays our interests in the hopes of securing peace without a fight.

The foreign policy of the Bush administration appeared very strong in reaction to a concrete particular event.  But beyond the retaliation to a concrete act of aggression, we see that the policy is a complete vacuum with regard to wider abstractions.  It eventually fizzled with the refusal to recognize which of the combatants outside of Afghanistan are the good guys and which are the bad guys; which are acting in self-defense and which are the aggressors; which are the innocent and which bare the responsibility of guilt.  Worst of all, is his indecision resulting from cowardice as to which way to best insure our security -- i.e., making war vs. establishing the Department of Homeland Security.  Like meeting a bully on the playground and being presented with the choice of fighting versus curling up into a fetal position, the Bush administration has chosen the latter hoping the terrorists will eventually tire of kicking us while we are down.  Does anyone look forward to recess tomorrow?

The only explanation possible for this atrocious foreign policy is that Bush does not have the ability to think in terms of principles, nor the courage to face an armed enemy, nor the moral resolve to stand against the opposition of world opinion, nor the confidence to face reality and make decisions with any degree of certainty -- beyond identifying the perceptually obvious.

Let us now take a look at the domestic policy of the Bush administration, in particular Bush's reaction to the recent events involving corporate fraud.  Once again rejecting principles and acting on the expediency of the moment, President Bush has declared war -- this time on American Business.

As was the case with Bush's foreign policy, the actions of his domestic policy are reactions triggered by concrete observable events -- this time the fraud committed by corrupt businessmen working at Enron and WorldCom.  But like the readily observable act of war on September 11, these events also have wider abstract principles that Bush fails to grasp.

In the case of Enron, it is necessary to look at the history of government regulations that crippled the energy industry in California.  Rather than attack the cause, which is rooted in price controls, environmental regulations, and government limitations on the production and distribution of electricity, Bush instead condemns not just Enron, but American Business in general.  He fails to place any blame on Big Government for creating the type of environment that fosters the type of corruption found at Enron.  In fact, just as Iran, the worst of all the terrorist nations, is hardly ever discussed in our current war against terrorists, Big Government is given no mention at all in Bush's attack on corporate America.

Just as his foreign policy has the US building coalitions with terrorist nations in the effort to fight terror, his domestic policy calls for more big government, the source of corruption that made the actions of Enron possible.  Just as he betrays Israel, our one true ally in the war against terrorist nations, he now attacks big business, the source of wealth in our country.  Just as he ignores decades of terrorist acts of war, which reveal exactly who the enemies are, he ignores decades of government regulations, which reveal the crippling effect of California's government on the energy industry.

It is true that fraud has been committed by a relatively small minority and that the responsible parties should be held accountable, but President Bush's response is to view all businessmen with suspicion.  And once again, there arises another similarity between his handling of foreign and domestic affairs.  Just as his response to terrorism is not to eliminate the threat by waging war against Iran, Iraq, and the PLO, but rather create new bureaucracies such as the Department of Homeland Security, his response to corporate fraud is to create new laws rather than enforce those which already exist.

Each year thousands of violent crimes are committed, such as rape, murder, and robbery.  Does the government respond by declaring that new laws are necessary to combat this?  Of course not, because the laws are already clear and it is just a matter of apprehending the perpetrators.  But when just one or two corporations (out of millions) commit fraud, it is now time to protect us from the evils of corporate America with talk of new laws and jail time.

Notice that Bush does not go after Enron in particular, but declares that it is time to "Get tough" with corporate America in general.  If it were just a matter of going after one scofflaw corporation, it would not be a matter for the federal government, it would be nothing more than a criminal matter for our judicial system to handle.  The implicit message here is that it is not just companies like Enron that we have to be on guard against, but American Business as such.

Such a premise implies that businessmen are inherently evil, and that we are to assume all of them are guilty until proven innocent.  As Ayn Rand pointed out in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, the businessman is America's most persecuted minority.  If it is wrong to discriminate based on religion, race, class, color or creed, then is it not also wrong to discriminate against businessmen since they are in fact a class of people?  Try to imagine that instead of a businessman committing an act of fraud, the issue involved a black man robbing a bank.  Can one imagine the outrage and the injustice of our federal government declaring that it was time to "get tough" on black people?

As I have now identified numerous similarities between Bush's handling of the war against terrorists and his handling of the "war on corporate America," it is now crucial to point out the most significant difference between the two.  In the war against terrorists, the targeted enemies are few, the actual enemies are many, they are armed, and Bush refuses to fight them.  In the "war on corporate America," the targeted victims are many, the actual criminals are few, neither is armed, and Bush attacks them both with zeal.  Why is this distinction so crucial -- beyond the obvious error involved?  Because it offers a very revealing glimpse into the nature of Bush's psychology.  Like an insecure man incapable of confronting day-to-day reality and backing away from confrontation with people he meets in his work place will return home to unleash his aggression by abusing his wife and family, President Bush freezes with self doubt in the face of Iran and Iraq and uses corporate America as an outlet for his inadequacies.  While this may just seem like a convenient analogy, it is actually a disturbing revelation about his psychology.  Under the current administration, The United States of America may just as well be The Dysfunctional States of America.

Ultimately, this is the sort of behavior that stems from insecurity and feelings of self-doubt.  Can we see any evidence of such in President Bush?  Some of the evidence is found in his dependency on the opinions of others.  While it is wise to obtain information and advice from others, it is quite another thing to abdicate the decision making process as such to others.  Bush's statements about terrorist nations forming an "Axis of Evil" were both strong and accurate.  But the forum of world opinion viewed such talk as harsh and extremist.  Rather than stand by his words, Bush has chosen to lighten up.  And at home, the current court of public opinion regards Bush as biased in favor of "Big Business."  Not to take this sort of criticism laying down, he has decided to prove them all wrong and join the popular voice of the liberal media in condemning "Big Business."

And as I have already shown, Bush lacks the ability to grasp wider abstractions and to think in terms of principles.  Because of this, he must necessarily feel helpless to confront reality with regard to such issues, and when concrete events with obvious black-and-white circumstances do present themselves, Bush reacts hastily and willingly because he recognizes an opportunity to fake his self worth.  With a chronic need to reassure himself, and to prove to the world, that he has some remnants of efficacy, he jumps at the chance to take action -- regardless of whether or it falls within the responsibilities of the Federal Government -- and avoids taking action whenever it would invite overwhelming criticism.

Bush had a great deal of confidence in his ability to handle and to react to the events of September 11 and the cases of corporate fraud because the circumstances involved were so concrete.  In fact he relished the opportunity to redeem his self-worth and to prove himself capable in the eyes of the world.  But in both cases, he was merely responding to concrete actions with nothing other than more concrete actions.  And when viewed without regard to any context or wider abstractions these were nothing more than the obvious responses one would take upon encountering an alleged injustice.

Due to his insecurities, this makes President Bush a very dangerous man.  He knows that he is incapable of understanding and dealing with the reality that confronts him and therefore gains a pseudo-self-esteem by acting out with blind aggression when the opportunity presents itself.  But without any principles to guide his choices and actions, it is the interests of our country that he ultimately sacrifices for what he gains in self-recognition.  During the last presidential election, Bush appeared to be a much safer choice that Al Gore.  Many, such as myself, believed that he was not intelligent enough to do any harm.  However, his lack of principles has made him as dangerous a choice, if not more, as Al Gore.  This presents a rather interesting conundrum for the next presidential election: do we elect a Democrat who would sacrifice American interests on principle, or do we reelect our president who sacrifices our interests because he has no principles?