The reality mandate: although reality is a mere commodity in the faith-based universe of George W. Bush, a truly reality-based majority must prevail in the next two years.

On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush will inaugurate his second term as president of the United States, and the nation is still divided. In its first four years, his administration failed to protect the country from the attacks of September 11, 2001, and invaded and occupied Iraq, where tens of thousands--even as many as l00,000--of that nation's people have been killed. This president led the country into a net loss of 1.2 million jobs, and 45 million Americans have been left without health care, many of whom are children. His administration's policies have also hacked away at civil liberties, hugely benefited the rich, and drastically lowered the image of the United States abroad. But on November 2, 2004, more than half of U.S. voters chose not to hold him accountable, prompting many across the globe to wonder, as was reflected on the cover of London's November 4, 2004, Daily Mirror, "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?"

But it isn't a matter of simple stupidity. It's the triumph of a huge campaign of carefully targeted, dissent-squelching, blame-evading, truth-denying propaganda. This administration has managed to convince large segments of the voting public of some astounding things: that Saddam Hussein had been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and was somehow responsible for al-Qaida attacks on U.S. soil, that government surveillance is keeping America safe without sacrificing important constitutional liberties, that "tort reform" is necessary to improve the healthcare system--when in fact it limits the ability of citizens to fight for their own welfare in court against big pharmaceutical companies, that outsourcing is good for the economy, and that over a thousand U.S. troops killed in Iraq and a growing insurgency mean "mission accomplished," Tax cuts for the rich? We're giving you your money back! It was as though by continually repeating these things they somehow became true.

But it isn't only half the public that has been distracted from the facts or brought into a state of denial. The administration has done this to itself as well. President Bush despises being questioned, as was apparent from his reaction to the multiple times he was asked during the campaign to name mistakes he'd made or things he would have done differently. Admitting his own errors and those of his cabinet were viewed as political suicide, so it was easier to follow the see-, hear-, and speak-no-evil, non-newspaper-reading policy of denial.

Regarding this problem with reality, Al Gore, in an October 19, 2004, speech at Georgetown University, made the following statement (italics are mine):

   It appears to be an important element in
   Bush's ideology to never admit a mistake
   or even a doubt. It also has become common
   for Bush to rely on special interests
   for information about the policies
   important to them and he trusts what
   they tell him over any contrary view that
   emerges from public debate. He has, in
   effect, outsourced the truth. Most disturbing
   of all, his contempt for the rule
   of reason and his early successes in persuading
   the nation that his ideologically
   based views accurately described the
   world have tempted him to the hubristic
   and genuinely dangerous illusion that
   reality is itself a commodity that can be
   created with clever public relations and
   propaganda skills, and where specific
   controversies are concerned, simply purchased
   as a turnkey operation from the
   industries most affected.

The Partisan Promotions

One indicator of this commodification of reality is the importance the administration attaches to "loyalty," All divisions of government are expected to accept and support the official line, as is apparent in the recent shakeup in Bush's cabinet and various government agencies.

With its newly minted "mandate" from the voters, the Bush administration has set out to demolish dissent in the Central Intelligence Agency. George Tenet, despite his dubious resignation from the CIA directorship, wasn't a dissenter--not even close. But his successor, Porter Goss, has proven in the past to be subservient to--and even "under the spell of"--Vice President Dick Cheney. It was obvious to many that Goss was too political even to be considered for such a sensitive job, particularly after he referred to presidential candidate John Kerry's national security views as "unrealistic and dangerously naive." And his presence on the joint 9/11 inquiry most likely gave the Bush administration a good deal of protection.

Goss has since warned employees at the CIA in a memo that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work," Is he going after the al-Qaida terrorist network, or is he instead rooting out the intelligence experts on al-Qaida who dare to disagree? The memo added, "we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies." Loyalty, not pursuit of truth, is apparently a requirement for this agency in reform.

Another promoted Bush groupie is Alberto Gonzales who, during Bush's governorship of Texas, briefed him on fifty-seven execution cases, all of which Bush approved. As White House counsel, Gonzales drafted a memo that declared President Bush's ability to designate suspected terrorists as "enemy combatants" A later memo he commissioned, following the Bush doctrine of contempt for multilateralism, took the liberty of eschewing international law, arguing that the president can't be bound by laws that forbid torture since it would supposedly "violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief authority." This was the infamous "torture memo" that was leaked during the summer of 2004 in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Remember the disgrace in having the international community decry the United States as a nation that promotes torture, when it had previously championed human rights? Any other president would have seen to it that the person accountable for such irresponsible disregard for human rights be fired on the spot (or take the fall for what were actually the administration's policies). But not the Bush administration. In its version of reality, these memos served Bush's purposes quite well. So Gonzales was named to replace John Ashcroft as U. S. attorney general.

In an administration in which an international disgrace like Gonzales is promoted, what's next? Could this man who declared the Geneva Conventions "quaint" soon declare the Constitution "obsolete?" And what does this say of the "moral values" bandied about so much during the election? Justifying the abuse of another human being to just under the brink of organ failure is an assault on the values of every American--enough to warrant pursuing not only the lowest ranking perpetrators but investigating the matter all the way up. Gonzales' immoral actions and his promotion must be unrelentingly condemned by all Americans who value human rights and demand justice.

Then there is Condoleeza Rice, who failed miserably to do her job by ignoring the warnings about Osama bin Laden and his plans to strike the United States. When she defended the administration's ignoring the Presidential Daily Briefing that plainly stated: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.," she insisted that this PDB was a "historical documerit:' But what is historical about a daily briefing? And to further highlight the matter, the PDB specifically mentioned that bin Laden wanted to "hijack a US aircraft" and that the FBI had reported "suspicious activity" such as "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York"

Even worse, Rice failed to counter the phony intelligence that the president used to steer the United States to war. The National Intelligence Estimate of October 1, 2002, which wrongly concluded that Iraq had "continuing programs for weapons of mass destruction," was commissioned by CIA Director George Tenet after President Bush had already decided to attack Iraq. It seems as though advising isn't Rice's strong suit.

So shouldn't such ineptitude keep her from receiving a promotion? Normally it would. But because of her smile-and-nod strategy as national security adviser, Rice will replace the only voice of reason (albeit stifled) in the cabinet, Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Such a dangerous assembly of partisans is a threat to the future of the United States. The people soon to be responsible for U.S. diplomatic relations, national security, and the defense of the Constitution didn't earn their posts by proving their worthiness. They earned them by proving their loyalty. They were promoted for enabling an extremist agenda: the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation on false pretenses and the compromising of civil liberties. And they will continue to advance that agenda regardless of the consequences for Americans.

The Corporate Occupation

In an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by Ron Suskind, a senior aide to President Bush was quoted as saying:

   We're an empire now, and when we act,
   we create our own reality. And while
   you're studying that reality--judiciously,
   as you will--we'll act again, creating
   other new realities, which you can study
   too, and that's how things will sort out.
   We're history's actors ... and you, all of
   you, will be left to study what we do.

What a telling statement. Evidently the Bush team has no regard for truth or reality, so they "create" their own and sell it to themselves and the public. Not only that, they also have the nerve or, to be more accurate, the hubris to gloat about it.

When he was first ordained president by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush said he wanted to run the country like a chief executive officer would run a company. This has proven to be an apt analogy because, as was seen with the Enron scandal, some CEOs are more concerned with their own profit and that of their cronies than they are with the smaller stockholders--not to mention the welfare of their employees and customers.

A large pharmaceutical corporation, Merck and Company, was recently caught peddling a drug called Vioxx to the public while allegedly knowing that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks. As far back as 1996 the company had directed its sales representatives to avoid questions doctors had about Vioxx's cardiac record. Even the Food and Drug Administration tried to stifle Dr. David Grahams study that revealed the dangers associated with the drug. Meanwhile Merck raked in millions.

While the ink is still drying on such scandals, the Bush administration's policy is similar: to deny the truth, create its own reality, and manufacture self-serving propaganda, despite reckless endangerment of the public welfare.

The legal system is out of control, the administration insists, due to an inordinate number of "frivolous lawsuits." This farcical litigation crisis is the concoction of over 100 corporatefunded groups that lobby tirelessly to sway public opinion to their campaign through suspect statistics, dubious dramas, and outright falsehoods. What better way to ensure that a corporation's questionable activities won't be punished than convincing wouldbe victims to limit their ability to sue for their damages in court?

And how convenient that the Bush campaign received handsome contributions from big pharmaceutical companies that clearly share their values: profit over any adverse effects on Americans. In an apparent expression of gratitude for such generosity, the administration conveniently prevented the importation of inexpensive Canadian prescription drugs under the guise of "homeland security." While declaring how much they "value" the health of the American public, those in this administration have instead pandered to the Republican party's corporate base at the public's expense.

Similar unabashed favoritism is visible in the execution of the Iraq occupation. The invasion, waged on false pretenses, still serves to fatten the wallets of defense-contracting corporations like Halliburton while only exacerbating the threat of terrorism. In October 2004, 380 tons of Iraqi explosives were missing due to a lack of security at a former Iraqi military facility. Since WMDs were the administration's priority, the site wasn't secured. But in a shameless display of pre-election blame shifting, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried to pin the president's ineptitude on the soldiers under his command. "No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there." he sneered on NBC'S Today show. "Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"

Despite what the administration and its cronies say, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is costing hard-working Americans hundreds of billions in tax dollars. And all that money hardly benefits those it should supposedly protect. U.S. troops are endangered by poor foresight, terrorists are increasing in numbers, and the occupation is thinning the ability of the United States to protect itself in the future. The primary beneficiaries are those who can profit from the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq.

Reality As a Strategy

So what should people of good will do in response? They should seize every opportunity to identify contradictions between policy and reality. They should actively denounce this president who has proved himself a reckless driver. The truth of the administration's incompetence in the past and in its current activities is damning and should be politically exploited.

The policy of denial will eventually bite the Bush league where it hurts. And that may well happen within the next two years--in time to expose this administration before the midterm elections in November 2006. Congress can be taken back from the extremists and the Bush juggernaut can be stopped before Americans are saddled with a wholly conservative Court for decades to come and a national debt their grandchildren will have to pay--and before the world suffers a possibly irreversible descent into environmental catastrophe.

The Economy

Soon after the recent election the spoof news site, the Onion, declared in its headline, "Nation's Poor Win Election for Nation's Rich." Truth indeed is spoken in jest. The middle class and the poor have been the victims of the Bush team's version of reality, and in the next two years that team will continue to wage what is best called the War Against Workers. Progressives can't mince words on this issue because Bush's tax cuts largely benefit the wealthy. Remember his base, which he jokingly (but candidly) declared to be "the haves and the have mores" Those with lower incomes have received only negligible monetary benefit from these tax cuts, which is counterbalanced by rising prices.

In fact, the Bush administration's fiscal policies are so irresponsible that they've angered a good number of Republicans. The deficit has skyrocketed along with the cost of the Iraq invasion, rendering further tax cuts completely unaffordable. Forty-five million people can't afford health care and the administration's new tax "simplification" will probably increase that number. According to an article in the November 18, 2004, Washington Post, White House advisers explained the simplification as "revenue-neutral." The article continued,

   To pay for them the administration is
   considering eliminating the deduction of
   state and local taxes on federal income
   tax returns and scrapping the business
   tax deduction for employer-provided
   health insurance, the advisers said.

That's right. They say they want to base the federal income tax on a higher sum by simply not counting what is already paid at the state and local level. And if employers don't receive tax deductions for providing employees with health care, they will be less able to continue to do so. Therefore, no matter how the Bush administration says they're helping the poor and the middle class, the War Against Workers is on.

The Constitution

The so-called Bush mandate seems to favor an encroachment of religion into law with "wedge issues" like gay marriage. But this agenda is overblown. Voters may not want a gay neighbor to marry his or her life partner but would these voters really support a federal ban? The push to outlaw a perfectly reasonable civil right comes from a radical minority of very loud (let me call them what they are) bigots. In reality, most people favor more civil liberties for Americans and less government encroachment. And what happened to the real conservatives who don't want to change the Constitution? The radicals in the current administration have put the word conservative to shame as much as they have the word liberal. People of integrity must emphasize how drastic a deviation this is from American values.

Another difficult issue is the frightening degree to which abortion rights are being chipped away by religious extremists. A woman's right to control her reproductive health should be inalienable in any civilized society, and the government should protect her right not to bear a child she doesn't want or can't provide for. But there are many who have no regard for issues of choice and who unscientifically and unethically seek to violate these rights under the guise of "fetal pain" and "fetal rights." Women must be respected and given the liberty and the means to receive safe and complete reproductive health care. Otherwise they will find other, less safe ways to protect themselves. It is morally wrong to force women into motherhood because the result is bad for children, mothers, society, the economy, and the environment.

The Environment, Inc.

A recent multinational study concluded that the Arctic ice cap is deteriorating rapidly, an effect that is due largely to human activity. The rising temperature in that area has led to startling changes in weather, putting various animal and plant species at risk of extinction. Tony Blair's top science adviser has said that global warming (which the Bush administration euphemistically calls "climate change") is a threat far worse than terrorism, And Blair himself stated that the sharp retreat in sea ice is a warning of a threat so alarming that it will "radically alter human existence" within his lifetime.

The rapid growth in human population, which is occurring mostly in the poorest nations, as well as polluting activity in developing and industrialized countries is interfering with the global climate at a dangerous level. But the Bush administration has not only refused to sign the Kyoto accords (along with only one other developed nation, Australia) but has blocked payments to the United Nations Population Fund and tried to make its "abstinence only" sex education plan international policy. According to UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, pregnancy is the leading cause of death in girls ages fifteen to nineteen in poor countries. Comprehensive sex education could save millions of lives by preventing unwanted pregnancy as well as the spread of AIDS. The "abstinence only" policy, by contrast, has proven to be drastically inferior in pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease prevention. But the Bush administration simply denies the facts and pursues an ideological agenda that affects not only people living in the United States but poor women across the globe--in addition to hastening the tragic effects of human population and greenhouse gasses on the environment.

In an October 27, 2004, speech, James Hansen, physicist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, accused the administration of "interference with and misuse of the scientific process" that is "occurring to a degree unprecedented in my scientific lifetime." He added, "I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disasters."

In addition, the Bush administration has consistently favored big business over the welfare of the environment. On November 17, 2004, the Sierra Club released documents that showed the Bush administration's reversal of a longstanding preservation policy to allow drilling for oil and gas underneath certain national parks. Not only did the administration open up federally reserved wildlife areas for exploitation but it also gave special treatment to the Texas-based Davis Brothers Oil Producers, Inc. In fact, the Sierra Club documents, which were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, showed that the Bush administration secretly changed the statute--and sidestepped the rulemaking process specifically per the request of Ross Davis, head of that corporation.

For the problem of global warming, the Bush solution is to ignore international environmental collaboration. For the population crisis, the administration takes an ideological initiative that hurts women and the planet. And when it comes to U.S. environmental policy, Bush's people open up national parks to corporate exploitation. For an administration that claims to be pro-life, its policies are deadly.

The Point

The campaign of John Kerry was pro-war, pro-guns, pro-God, and anti-gay marriage. Essentially, the Democrats were terrified of being seen as unpatriotic, supportive of a "gay agenda," or lacking in religious conviction. They were so afraid of offending the "moral values" of the undecided voters that they didn't seem to have a strong set of values themselves. So the plan didn't work. While exit polls revealed that 22 percent of voters said "moral values" were the most important factor affecting their vote ahead of terrorism, Iraq, jobs, and the economy 80 percent of such people voted for Bush.

Meanwhile, vast numbers of others recognized that political and economic issues are moral concerns and voted accordingly. Thus the Democratic campaign alienated not only progressives but also many in the middle, forcing them to compromise their own values just to have a shot at getting rid of President Bush.

Given this, and now given a second Bush administration, there is no warrant for further compromise. What point is there in anyone soft-pedaling important values in order to win the hearts of right-wing radicals, religious fundamentalists, and assorted bigots?

"The Days After: A Message from Political Research Associates" of November 24, 2004, made the point that, over the last thirty years, the right wing "has succeeded in building a mass social movement around people's fears of losing the things they see as holding their lives together: traditional values, security of the homeland, religious faith." The people so mobilized cast their votes in "protest against those movements which challenged many traditional assumptions about race, gender and sexual orientation" Many people in the States still resent the freedoms gained by minorities during the civil rights era and beyond. And many fear scientific discoveries and consequent social change.

But it isn't practical to negotiate with those who don't believe in fairness and equality or who dogmatically reject the science that predicts environmental danger. And there is no more time for activists on the left to act like they're afraid of what they believe because, in this atmosphere of extremism, an inch of capitulation could bring destruction.

Fortunately, most Americans do care about the suffering of their fellow citizens and do respect science. So although the election emphasized differences in people's values, there must be more emphasis on shared values. And ordinary Americans need to be convinced that they already know what's right. A clear message with values-driven causes like universal healthcare and environmental responsibility is essential. If the dangerous deception and harmful action carried out by the ideologues in the White House and Congress can be successfully communicated, "mainstream America" will realize that its real values are more closely aligned with candidates who favor progressive measures instead of so-called compassionate conservatives.

Those who oppose Bush have reality, morality, and common human values on their side. And they have a moral obligation to stifle at every turn the harmful behavior of the Bush administration. To retreat now would be an injustice to future generations. When the facts so clearly point to the administration as guilty of arrogant trickery, corporate favoritism, and assault on the welfare of the public and the environment, all people of good will need to act so that they can tell future generations what they did about it.

After all, there's no value in having reality on your side if you don't use it.

Rachel Gillett is the editorial associate for the Humanist.