« For Bush, "proper" pardons only. | Matthew Stavros's Blog | Building National Unity, One Rick Warren at a Time »
Ahmadinejad, Bush, and the Presumption of Good
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered British Channel 4's alternative Christmas address yesterday, sending a message of "happiness, prosperity, peace and brotherhood for humanity." On cue, the broadcast ignited a storm of criticism from those who site the Iranian president's
nuclear ambitions, his hardline views on Israel, and resolute rejection of homosexuality. But the message was moderate, with none of the harsh rhetoric for which he has gained notoriety. God, he said, had created "every human being with the ability to reach the heights of perfection". He also urged Muslims and Christians to work together towards a world of "love, brotherhood and justice".
Why the outrage? I tend not to watch but doesn't President Bush give a televised Christmas address each year? He is a resolute defender of his country's right to possess nuclear weapons (and his is the only country that's ever used them, twice). He threatens countries in the Middle East and even invades them, illegally and unjustly, killing tens of thousands of civilians. And yes, he absolutely rejects homosexuality and publicly supports legislation to limit the civil rights of gays.
I believe the difference is not merely hypocrisy or a double standard. It's something I've come to call a "presumption of good." When Iraqis, for example, kill civilians, it's their natural predisposition, it's just what they do. When the US uses predator drones in northern Afghanistan to kill civilians, it's an anomaly, a terrible misfortune, albeit a necessary one. The former, our enemies, are presumed evil; they mean to do bad and they do do bad. The latter, the US, is presumed good; "we" mean to do good but sometimes there are bad outcomes: Gotta break eggs to make an omelet!
Bush's Christmas message of peace and love is acceptable because that's the real him up there on the box, telling us to spread joy and goodness. This essentially very good man, however, due to the nature of his job, is sometimes forced to order missile strikes and even invasions that result in the deaths of thousand, even hundreds of thousands of people, and the destruction of the ways of life of millions more. But that's just his job. And he needs to do such for the greater good. Even his evil deeds are conducted out of desire to do good, or so we presume.
But Ahmadinejad! There's a different story. This man's fundamentally evil. He's just plain bad; there's not a good bone in his body. Therefore, the man we see on the television spreading a message of peace and love is a hoax. He's a liar. A fake. He's putting that face on to trick us; to distract us; to try to hide who he really is: a murdering bigot who is essentially bad.
One is presumed to be good. The other is presumed to be bad. But I think something is wrong with this picture. Neither, of course, is essentially good nor bad. Only our perceptions are twisted.
Thanks for commenting and recommending.
nuclear ambitions, his hardline views on Israel, and resolute rejection of homosexuality. But the message was moderate, with none of the harsh rhetoric for which he has gained notoriety. God, he said, had created "every human being with the ability to reach the heights of perfection". He also urged Muslims and Christians to work together towards a world of "love, brotherhood and justice".
Why the outrage? I tend not to watch but doesn't President Bush give a televised Christmas address each year? He is a resolute defender of his country's right to possess nuclear weapons (and his is the only country that's ever used them, twice). He threatens countries in the Middle East and even invades them, illegally and unjustly, killing tens of thousands of civilians. And yes, he absolutely rejects homosexuality and publicly supports legislation to limit the civil rights of gays.
I believe the difference is not merely hypocrisy or a double standard. It's something I've come to call a "presumption of good." When Iraqis, for example, kill civilians, it's their natural predisposition, it's just what they do. When the US uses predator drones in northern Afghanistan to kill civilians, it's an anomaly, a terrible misfortune, albeit a necessary one. The former, our enemies, are presumed evil; they mean to do bad and they do do bad. The latter, the US, is presumed good; "we" mean to do good but sometimes there are bad outcomes: Gotta break eggs to make an omelet!
Bush's Christmas message of peace and love is acceptable because that's the real him up there on the box, telling us to spread joy and goodness. This essentially very good man, however, due to the nature of his job, is sometimes forced to order missile strikes and even invasions that result in the deaths of thousand, even hundreds of thousands of people, and the destruction of the ways of life of millions more. But that's just his job. And he needs to do such for the greater good. Even his evil deeds are conducted out of desire to do good, or so we presume.
But Ahmadinejad! There's a different story. This man's fundamentally evil. He's just plain bad; there's not a good bone in his body. Therefore, the man we see on the television spreading a message of peace and love is a hoax. He's a liar. A fake. He's putting that face on to trick us; to distract us; to try to hide who he really is: a murdering bigot who is essentially bad.
One is presumed to be good. The other is presumed to be bad. But I think something is wrong with this picture. Neither, of course, is essentially good nor bad. Only our perceptions are twisted.
Thanks for commenting and recommending.
Advertisement
One thing I do know. w is reading from a script written by somebody who probably went to Bobby Jones University.
I gave up giving w the benefit of a doubt sometime in 2004. I will never believe that he is, underneath it all, a good human being. That he has good intents, primarily because I do not see him as being able to form an intent in the first place.
However, to hear the president of Iran say that he wishes the Muslim world and the Christian world to work together. Now there is a story.
December 26, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for putting words to my thoughts exactly! Bush has done more harm than Ahmadinejad, both to the world, and also to Americans. He has said things that are no more harmful than Bush, and his deeds don't even come close in terms of death and destruction.
An aside: When Bush continues in his legacy-boosting interviews to say how Saddam wasn't giving up his WMD's and doesn't get challenged I just want to throw a shoe at the TV! First of all, what was he supposed to show, since he didn't HAVE any freaking WMD's? And the weapons instructors were kicked out of Iraq -- not by Saddam -- by Bush when he told them to get out so he could invade! Does he get challenged? No. When Cheney says he isn't a part of the Executive Branch is he quarantined as a dangerous idiot? No; he is left alone to shred emails as everyone runs to re-read the Constitution, and then quietly say that they politely disagree with this loose cannon of a veeper!
I am so sick of this, and the way the press just folds and piles on with, as you say: US of A -- good, noble, and on the side of justice and truth; Iran -- bad, and secretly wanting to have the same weapons as Israel, India, Pakistan, the US, Russia (and god knows who else?) The hypocrisy is absurd as they yawn at the crimes of our very own regime, but foam at the mouth at the Illinois' governor scandal and try desperately to tie it to Obama even though the prosecutor says he is not involved!
December 26, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes it more and more difficult to remain civil does it not, CVille?
December 27, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked this post. It's good to step back and see how others look at the world, especially how our perceived enemies look at the world.
I get so mad sometimes at the folks (I don't have to name names...not in here at any rate) that believe their outlook is the only outlook. They cannot wait for the other guy to stop speaking so they can immediately declare the other guy is wrong....which leads me to believe they weren't even listening at all. They just sat there with their fingers in their ears going, "la-la-la-la-la" so they deliberately couldn't hear. Yet, they demand the other guy (and us) listen to every word they say and accept it as the only truth.
No progress is ever made that way. And I never understood how any one would think it could
December 27, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saying what needs to be said. This double standard has been an accepted norm for decades.
With the patriotism propaganda after 9/11 and leading into the Iraq war, it will be very difficult to initiate a shift among the public toward unbiased listening to other world leaders. It appears the will does not currently exist to even bring this up for discussion in most circles.
Hopefully when he takes office, Obama's message will generate enough momentum to jolt us out of this mindset.
December 27, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without a null hypothesis, perception is five tenths illusion mixed with five tenths delusion.
December 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that there is a good deal of hypocrisy and a double standard in the United States, especially under the bush regime. However, the presumption of good is not just a U.S. conceit, but instead exists in all cultures. No doubt Hamas believes they are justified and are doing good when attacking Israel and vice versa. I think what you're saying is that the U.S. and the West have a higher duty to refrain from such thinking, especially when forming official policies of State. I would agree with you if that's what you are saying.
December 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink