[PAA-Discuss] Bush's Clever Cognitive Dissonance

[Ron and Kris Graham]

I can't figure out if Bush is so deluded that he's bought his own con and
really believes he's upholding his duties as outlined in the U.S.
Constitution or if he's deliberately lying with a smirk on his face and
playing people for fools. What do you guys think?

 

Kris

 

Bush's Clever Cognitive Dissonance

So, George W. Bush sees himself as the great defender of the U.S.
Constitution.

 

by Robert Parry

 

Global Research <http://www.globalresearch.ca> , November 18, 2007

consortiumnews.com 

 

In a Nov. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071115-14.html>
15 speech to the right-wing Federalist Society, the President embraced the
Constitution's checks and balances as a vital protection against tyranny.
And he demanded that federal judges act as fair referees, not political or
ideological partisans.

To many Americans who have been aghast at Bush's six-plus years of trampling
the Constitution, such pronouncements might represent a textbook case of
"cognitive dissonance," a psychological term describing the uncomfortable
tension when one's stated principles are at odds with one's actions.

For Bush, however, this divergence of words from behavior may be closer to
the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes, when the monarch strutted about in
invisible garments while his terrified subjects kept quiet about his
nakedness.

In this case, the Washington press corps reported on Bush's speech as if the
President were entirely sincere and left out contradictory facts.

For instance, there was silence about how Bush prevailed in Election 2000 by
getting five partisan Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop
a recount of votes in Florida that - if it had been allowed to tally all
legally cast ballots - might well have put Al Gore in the White House.

Instead, the five Republican justices cast aside any sense of neutrality -
and their own principles about avoiding federal interference in state
decisions - to hammer together a twisted ruling that halted the recount and
gave the election to George W. Bush. [For details, see our new book, Neck
Deep <http://www.neckdeepbook.com/> .]

Yet, in his Nov. 15 speech, Bush declared how important it was for judges to
act as honest umpires.

"When people see the umpire rooting for one team, public confidence in our
courts is eroded, the sense of unfairness is heightened and our political
debates are poisoned," Bush said. "So we will insist . on judges who call
the game fairly."

Bush also declared that he was committed to the original intent of the
Founders as expressed in the Constitution.

"Tonight I will discuss a judicial philosophy that is based on what our
Founders intended," Bush said. "The President's oath of office commits him
to do his best to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States.' I take these words seriously. I believe these words mean
what they say."

'Plenary' Powers

Yet, even many conservative legal scholars, such as former assistant
attorney general Jack Goldsmith, believe that Bush and his inner circle have
stretched the wartime powers of the President far beyond what the Founders
intended or the Constitution allows.

Bush has asserted "plenary" - or unlimited - powers as Commander in Chief
for the duration of the indefinite "war on terror." In Bush's view, that
means he can ignore the rights that the Constitution grants to both citizens
and other branches of the federal government.

While the Founders envisioned "unalienable rights" for all mankind, Bush
claims that he can even waive habeas corpus, a principle dating back to the
Middle Ages requiring the government to present evidence of a person's
guilt.

Habeas was a right that the Founders considered so fundamental that they
embedded it in the body of the Constitution. But Bush's former White House
counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once told the Senate Judiciary
Committee, "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution."

Gonzales's unorthodox view - which left Republican Sen. Arlen Specter
sputtering in disbelief - also wasn't just theoretical. Bush and his
administration have locked up people, including American citizens, while
denying them their day in court. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Gonzales
Questions  <http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html> Habeas Corpus."]

Bush also has formulated military commissions - first unilaterally and then
through legislative action - that represent a parallel legal system
operating outside the rules of the U.S. Constitution.

In effect, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 casts aside not only habeas
corpus but the Sixth Amendment, which grants the accused "the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" and the right to confront
one's accusers. By contrast, in Bush's system, there is no guarantee of
either a speedy or a public trial. Secrecy dominates in a process run by
U.S. military officers whose careers depend on the favor of the Commander in
Chief.

The military commissions also would apply not only to foreign "unlawful
enemy combatants" but to "any person" who aids the enemy "in breach of an
allegiance or duty to the United States," presumably a reference to U.S.
citizens. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who Is
<http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/101906.html> 'Any Person' in Tribunal
Law?"]

In his warrantless wiretapping program, Bush also has brushed aside the
Fourth Amendment, which requires that the government establish "probable
cause" before it can conduct searches of Americans. In his wiretapping
operation, Bush ignored, too, the specific legal requirements of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Bush's approval of harsh interrogation tactics, including simulated drowning
by "water-boarding," also has made a mockery of the Eighth Amendment and its
ban on "cruel and unusual punishments," not to mention federal statutes
prohibiting torture.

Unitary Executive

Still, Bush's Nov. 15 speech talked glowingly of the constitutional "checks
and balances" as a guard against tyranny. 

"When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear understanding
of tyranny," Bush said. "They also had a clear idea about how to prevent it
from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to separate the
government's powers into three co-equal branches: the executive, the
legislature, and the judiciary. .

"Each serves as a check on the others. And to preserve our liberty, each
must meet its responsibilities - and resist the temptation to encroach on
the powers the Constitution accords to others."

But for the past six years, Bush has asserted his right as "unitary
executive" to ignore any law that he chooses by asserting his "plenary"
powers and attaching "signing statements."

In effect, if one examines Bush's claims of unlimited executive power - and
overlays that with a "war on terror" of indefinite duration - a fair
conclusion is that the President has, in effect, eliminated both the "checks
and balances " and the "unalienable rights" that the Founders enshrined in
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Under Bush's theories, constitutional rights can be selectively denied by
one person, him.

Yet, in his Federalist Society speech, Bush was the rock-ribbed protector of
the Founders' dream of a constitutional Republic. He chided his political
opponents for their more flexible interpretation of the Constitution.

"Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living
Constitution,'" Bush said. "In practice, a living Constitution means
whatever these activists want it to mean. They forgot that our Constitution
lives because we respect it enough to adhere to its words."

But what Bush has sought in key federal judicial appointments, including his
Supreme Court selections of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, are judges who
will predictably assent to Bush's extraordinary assertion of presidential
powers, regardless of the words in the Constitution or the intent of the
Founders.

Cognitive Dissonance

In a broader sense, Bush's Nov. 15 speech reflected what has been a core
rhetorical device of the modern American Right, the clever use of cognitive
dissonance - the confident assertion of positions that fly in the face of
reality.

I first encountered this tactic in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan sought
to frustrate the intent of government policies from the 1970s by appointing
individuals who were hostile to those goals but who claimed to embrace the
same principles.

For instance, Reagan disdained President Jimmy Carter's emphasis on "human
rights" but instead of making a complete break, Reagan appointed Ernest
Lefever as the State Department's human rights pointman.

Though Reagan and the Right hailed Lefever as a champion of human rights,
the nomination foundered after critics, including his own family members,
presented evidence of his racial prejudices and fondness for South Africa's
apartheid government.

(After Lefever's nomination was pulled, Reagan turned to a more astute
practitioner of this technique, a bright and aspiring neoconservative named
Elliott Abrams.)

In dealing with environmental issues, Reagan took a similar tack. Instead of
directly challenging environmental policies enacted during the previous
decade, he appointed right-wing "environmentalists" who talked about their
love of nature while quietly dismantling regulatory protections.

What the Right - and especially the neocons - drew from these experiences
was that the Washington press corps could be tough when contesting some
narrow falsehood or a slight hypocrisy, but would ignore audacious
misrepresentations, at least when they came from Republicans backed by
aggressive right-wing media attack groups.

Bush has proved to be a master of this technique because he shows even fewer
scrupples than the average politician in making claims that are at clear
variance with the truth.

For instance, in his last two addresses to the United Nations General
Assembly, Bush has hailed the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights
although its tenets are in contradiction of his claims that he can kill,
kidnap, detain, torture and spy on anyone of his choosing anywhere in the
world.

Nevertheless, Bush displayed a well-founded confidence that the U.S. press
corps wouldn't challenge him on these obvious hypocrisies - and he was
right. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Bush to World: Up Is Down
<http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092507.html> ."]

Indeed, one of the most successful features of Bush's presidency may be his
ability to exploit cognitive dissonance to avoid accountability for his
actions. While Bush doesn't blush when his actions belie his words, the
American political system can't seem to cope, incapable of either
reconciling Bush's dishonesty or enforcing any accountability upon him.

The national press corps and other Washington institutions - like the
emperor's subjects in the old fable - try as best they can to ignore the
obvious.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous
Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat,
and can be ordered at  <http://www.neckdeepbook.com/> neckdeepbook.com. His
two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from
Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project
Truth' are also available there. Or go to
<http://www.amazon.com/Neck-Deep-Disastrous-Presidency-George/dp/1893517020/
ref=ed_oe_h/105-6934069-6141258?ie=UTF8&qid=1189519378&sr=8-1> Amazon.com. 


Robert Parry is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Rob
ert&authorName=Parry> Global Research Articles by Robert Parry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20071119/6131225b/attachment.htm>