[Perlstein]

OK. Perlstein here. Let's discuss. Everyone seems to agree that it's a fair piece, that it reports a fact that people are comfortable with: that Bush sees no reason to question his policies, because he believes them to be in concert with his faith.

My question: let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that George W. Bush did something you didn't like, that you thought was disastrous. Even in the face of bad results, he kept at it. You get frustrated, and hope he will hew back to a course you do agree with. But then you realize he will never change, because Bush thinks his course is divinely ordained.

Assuming that
1) Bush is human, and will make mistakes;
2) That when you make a mistake, the best course often is to CHANGE course;
3) The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake;

then isn't this an abuse of faith, not a way of honoring God?

[Sender]

Perlstein, as in the actual excretor of the above article?

[SnarlinCubBear]

ping for later

[Howlin]

You're assuming a lot, don't you think?

Just because Bush has faith, doesn't mean he's hell bent on a certain course.

He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who believes he's infallable. You're confusing him with somebody else.

[dead]

Bush sees no reason to question his policies, because he believes them to be in concert with his faith.

You never attempted to make that point in your article. It is an absolute basic tenet of Christian belief that every human is by definition fallable. Every Christian, including Bush, knows they make mistakes each and every day. They also believe that to “get right with God” they need to try to take the actions that will correct those mistakes.

My question: let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that George W. Bush did something you didn't like, that you thought was disastrous.

No shortage of those actions on my account. His steel tariffs, the education bill, campaign finance reform, farm bill, etc.

Even in the face of bad results, he kept at it. You get frustrated, and hope he will hew back to a course you do agree with. But then you realize he will never change, because Bush thinks his course is divinely ordained.

He saw his error on the steel tariffs, for example, and reversed course. He does not, in any way, believe his decisions are divinely ordained. You seem to be changing your argument, because your article didn’t stir up enough outrage.

Regarding the war on terror, he has changed tactics frequently. Sometimes frustratingly so. But he hasn't faltered from his overall contention that the threat posed to the free world by Islamic fundamentalism must be confronted and defeated. Whether his determination to complete that mission is driven by his faith in God or his common sense matters little to me. It is a fact.

And I'm happy that his reelection prospects don't figure into his equations on that battle.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

3) The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake;

then isn't this an abuse of faith, not a way of honoring God?

Being imperturable because of strong faith in God does not equate to never admitting to a mistake. Part of prayer is listening and then striving to act in conformity with His plan.

I infer from people who are uncomfortable with having a devout Christian in the White House that they believe only atheists or those who are not really serious about their faith are compentent to hold public offiec.

[dirtboy]

The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake;

I think you are crafting a strawman here - that the reason that the Bush Admin is loathe to admit mistakes is because of Bush's faith. I would venture instead that the main reason that the Bush Admin clams up over mistakes is that the media, and especially far-left critics, jump over the Bush Admin swinging like banshees no matter what Bush does - so why bother giving them more ammo?

You only need to look at the chronic distortions by the media of the positions of the Bush Administration - from Kyoto (it was DOA after that 1995 95-0 vote in the Senate, Bush just declared it DOA) to the infamous lie that Bush claimed that the threat from Saddam was imminent in his 2002 SOTU to justify attacking Saddam when Bush instead said we shouldn't wait for the threat to become imminent.

If the left wants Bush to admit to mistakes, they should start by being more honest in their criticisms of his administration. The well is being poisoned by both parties here.

[Peach]

I don't for a minute believe that President Bush makes decisions based on religion, not decisions like national security, anyway. Perhaps on partial birth abortion and stem cell replacement therapy.

And your statement that President Bush does not question his policies because he considers them in concert with his faith is rather ridiculous in my view. We have seen dozens of articles written about adminsitration officials who have been quoted as saying that the president LIKES to have different opinions presented to him and he studies all sides of the issue and makes a decision.

And where have you seen evidence of this:

"The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake."

Many freepers would disagree with that statement entirely. He has changed course on some things so often that negative freepers have called him a flip flopper ala Kerry. Cases in point: didn't want a 9/11 Commission, was going to only give them on hour, wasn't going to let Condi testify, the list is a fairly long one, in fact. I don't consider them flip flops but the considered judgement of a man who changes his mind when either politics or the course of events intervenes.

For that matter - Bush ran as an isolationist. 9/11 intervened and the doctrine changed to one of pre-emption.

Your arguments are don't hold water for me.

[Miss Marple]

It isn't that President Bush thinks he is infallible. A careful reading of both his public actions and speeches should lead one to think otherwise. (Paul O'Neill is no longer Secretary of the Treasury, for example.)

Apparently what the left wants is for the president to state his mistakes in public, so that they have a nice juicy headline. Unfortunately for that group, he isn't stupid enough to take them up on their offer.

I do believe that attempting to make his lack of public mea culpa a requirement for a sound Christian faith is a bit silly and you should know better.

[Brad’s Gramma]

... Bush sees no reason to question his policies, because he believes them to be in concert with his faith.

Not meaning to argue, but can you show me facts, instances, NOT someone's reading something into something that GW sees no reason to question his policies due to his faith in God?

let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that George W. Bush did something you didn't like, that you thought was disastrous

He has. Disastrous? Maybe, maybe not. But since he's NOT God, I will not agree with him 100% of the time anyway!

when you make a mistake, the best course often is to CHANGE course;

What mistake? And in who's opinion has this mistake been made? GW's? Or the left who will argue that he can't even put his shoes on correctly?

that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake;

Impossible. EVERYONE makes mistakes. We are all sinners. We all fall short of the glory of God. If GW is a true believer in our risen Lord and Saviour, he HAS to confess his sins, and between he & God, he has to rectify that. Making your final comment....then isn't this an abuse of faith, not a way of honoring God?

wrong.

[Brad’s Gramma]

AND!.......the title of your article alone is typical of the left.

The left glorified Clinton, even though he and Monica were carrying on in the Oval Office. Even though he sold us out to China and who knows who else....Even though he lied, cheated, I'll stop there...

But to pray is a crime??

It just doesn't work, sorry.

[Tamzee]

then isn't this an abuse of faith, not a way of honoring God?

Your basic premise is upside-down... you obviously don't hang out with dedicated Christians ;-) The more sincere and genuine the Christian, the more humble they are and likely to re-examine every decision assuming they may have made a mistake.

The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable

Bush is "imperturbable" not because of his confidence in his decisions, but because of his confidence in his own motivations.

BTW, I firmly believe Bush would be very open and humble about any mistakes he makes were our press not waiting eagerly to use any such admission as a club against him. And what mistakes did the non-religiously-faithful Clinton admit to that weren't first revealed by DNA and wiretaps?

[VRWC_minion]

then isn't this an abuse of faith, not a way of honoring God?

A man that truly has a calling from God will not stray from biblical principles. When he does, he needs to be corrected. That is the job of christians that are around him.

[onyx]

My question: let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that George W. Bush did something you didn't like, that you thought was disastrous. Even in the face of bad results, he kept at it. You get frustrated, and hope he will hew back to a course you do agree with. But then you realize he will never change, because Bush thinks his course is divinely ordained.





His immigration "proposal."
He believes he's doing the right thing.
I disagree, but I respect him for his stance.
And for his faith in God.

[Mo1]

My question: let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that George W. Bush did something you didn't like, that you thought was disastrous. Even in the face of bad results, he kept at it. You get frustrated, and hope he will hew back to a course you do agree with. But then you realize he will never change, because Bush thinks his course is divinely ordained.

thinks his course is divinely ordained??

Apparently you don't get it

President Bush doesn't look to his faith as divinely ordained .. He looks to his faith for guidance and strength

Why does that seem to bother you?

[ohioWfan]

Assuming that
1) Bush is human, and will make mistakes;
2) That when you make a mistake, the best course often is to CHANGE course;
3) The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake;

then isn't this an abuse of faith, not a way of honoring God?

Will the REAL Rick Perlstein please stand up??

The one who was trying, albeit without having the facts straight, to be fair in the article, isn't in sync with this line of fallacious argument which you have just posted.

Number one........what 'mistake' was he supposed to admit to? One of your choosing, or one that he really thinks he made?

Number two........why should he be so stupid as to admit to a 'mistake' that he doesn't believe he made in front of a ravenous and hostile enemy (i.e. the WH press pool), when he knew full well what their intent was.

Number three.........there is no need to 'change course' when the course one is on is the RIGHT one.

And finally, and most importantly, accusing him of abusing faith and not honoring God because he didn't fall into the leftist trap shows that you are among those who would ensnare him (if you were smart enough).

He has said he has made mistakes.....his humanity is not in doubt.......he's just too savvy for the leftist press, and you are convoluting all manner of reason to fault his faith for it.

btw, the millions of people praying for him ARE part of the reason he remains calm. He has a power and a peace within him that you will never understand unless you humble yourself in repentance before an Almighty God (as George W. Bush did) and ask for it........

[shhrubbery!]

But then you realize he will never change, because Bush thinks his course is divinely ordained.

This is a faulty premise. Bush does not think his course is "divinely ordained." He knows he is human; and to be human is to make mistakes, even if one is faithful to God.

Bush --and most Christians who understand their faith-- rely on God for strength. They do not think God somehow dictates the right course of action to them for every circumstance; but they pray for wisdom that they might make the right decisions.

At least that's my take on it.

[FrankR]

"3) The depth of Bush's faith makes him so imperturbable that it's unlikely he will ever change course because he never admits to making a mistake; "

Well, that would be depending on WHO is defining the "mistake". You liberal journalists seem to thing everything he does is a mistake.

Just because he doesn't do it your way doesn't make it a mistake.

Getting head from a clerk on the Presidential Seal, was a mistake...

Taking steps to conquer terrorism and make America safe, could never be deemed a "mistake", except maybe by the militant Iraqi's, Saddam, and America's leftists.

I don't know why it is that if one single comment is made about anything clinton did in 8 years is made, liberals go beserk...but those same people want to micro-manage Bush's presidency on a daily...no...hourly, basis.

Thanks to you and hillary, I come to avoid anything with the word "village" attached to it.

[Paul_B]

Interesting article. One fault is it's a broadbrush:

> This belief among his followers is another element behind Bush's apparent imperturbability. His signals to them have produced a mass of people who unequivocally embrace the notion that their president was given to them by Providence.

I dare say that many of us do think he is God's man "for such a time as this", however that does not translate to a lack of criticism for some of his positions. Spending, coddling Arafat for a couple years (though never as much as Clinton did), backing the likes of Arlen Specter, etc. have all been cause for chagrin among Christian conservatives. Some actually have bailed, to go to, perhaps, Buchanan. But most are more practical and have learned/are learning the need for compromise and incrementalism. Especially when elections are won and lost by razor thin margins, we don't have the luxury of being overly independent of mainstream choices.

Speaking of Arafat, there's a case that shows that Bush can change his position. Bush giving him too much legitimacy was very troublesome. But he eventually backed off on that and took a harder line. I don't recall an announcement that the policy had been changed, and certainly there was no apology, but the policy was indeed changed for the better.

[cyncooper]

that Bush sees no reason to question his policies, because he believes them to be in concert with his faith.

On the contrary, he would question and review his policies precisely because of his faith.

Why do you say he does not question and make changes to his policies when his record states the opposite?

[My2Cents]

Sharing the same faith GW Bush has, viewing the world through the same lens of faith Bush does, and having read a number of articles about Bush's faith, including Stephen Mansfield's book, I don't think he has "visions" or has deluded himself into thinking he hears God's voice before embarking on a policy direction. I've read that Bush has the attitude that he should "do the right thing, and then trust God for the consequences." He is convinced that in his policy initiatives, he is doing the right thing. He has a peace that if indeed he's doing the right thing, he'll be vindicated.

An example of "doing right" -- I'm convinced that Bush has taken the position he has on immigration because he believes it is the "right" approach, even though much of his base seethed and foamed. GW Bush is more motivated by "doing what is right" than he is by simplistic political ideology. Another example: He's convinced that toppling Saddam was the "right thing to do," but I doubt he would hang that big picture objective on the individual aspects of the war to topple Saddam, or on the individual aspects of the post-Saddam efforts to stabilize Iraq. In other words, I think Bush would ascribe "rightness" to overall policy, not to individual aspects or tactics to achieve an overall policy.

Also, there is a political imperative to *not* admitting failure...It isn't that he lacks humility, but that he refuses to fall into the trap of his adversaries on the weighty issues of war and peace by giving them a hammer to bludgeon him with.