BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

The Bush war speech, and the law of the pack

by David Yeagley · January 11, 2007 · 11 Comments ·

Last night, our president, the President of the United States, George Bush, offered a renewed plan for our Iraq ‘campaign.’ (No, it’s not really a war, but a mission, a campaign for democracy in the Middle East.) It is a major concern, if not the major concern, politically. After the speech, Democrat Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois) was allowed air time to contradict and condemn everything the President said, and to imply, directly, that the president has personally failed, in thought and character.

I have to wonder at this circumstance, when the elected leader of a nation, in a time of great anxiety and international Muslim violence, is freely condemned and ridiculed by those lesser leaders who disagree with him. It is a remarkable phenomenon.


President George Bush

Now, in America, we pride ourselves on freedom of speech, liberty to oppose, and the whole “democratic” process we call it. But, in this ideology of free-for-all head knocking and face punching, are the laws of common sense utterly disregarded? Have they no place in the matter?

In terms of socio-psychology, we’re really missing something important here. Group behavior requires adherence to certain laws, or, there is no group at all. By definition, there has to be some kind of unity of thought, purpose, and action. Group behavior begins in the family. It extends all the way to the nation. The same laws apply. The complexity of numbers does not invalidate the basic socio-psychology of the fundamentals of group behavior.

Is it healthy to broadcast immediate refutation, condemnation, and mere interpretation, immediately after the leader of the nation has spoken? Is it even logical to arrange such a circumstance?

What is the recent precedent? Bill Clinton, of course, had brought to the White House such low-down behavior, such despicable and persistent personal immorality, such juvenile and reprehensible revelry and perversion that the tone of opposition against “the presidency” was raised to an unprecedented height of intensity–equal to the offensive behavior of the president. But now the opposition believes that its duty is to overthrow the office. That’s what it’s come to. The personal hatred for George Bush–whose character is the antithesis of Bill Clinton’s, has developed to the point that the opposition shows no respect for the White House, or the country.

There are very basic concepts missing here. The nation is our team, the group we are all members of. Yet, basic concepts of team play are neglected in all this. I’m thinking that even the most basic concepts of brotherhood are absent.

If America is a Christian nation, what can we say about Christian brotherhood? It is a most fundamental concept that the Christian humbles himself–specifically for the sake of the brotherhood, “in honor preferring one another,” as Paul put it (Romans 12:10). Church goers everywhere know about the perils of organization and its power struggles. The unique thing about the Christian community, supposedly, is it’s ability to surpass this natural agony with conscious humility. The very essence of the Christian spirit is not to assert oneself against another, but to meekly submit to others–specifically for the sake of unity.

Jesus said, “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:26-28.

Obviously, America is not a Christian brotherhood, per se, but, isn’t there a great lesson here? Isn’t there a concept that we do well to consider? Can our political process, our national behavior, not benefit from this perspective?

There is hardly any escape from the group identity. We are all part of one kind of group or another. We are all on any number of “Pequots” out to sea. Some of us are after Moby Dick, others are simply whaling, doing a job. But every ship has a captian. The penalty of mutiny is very serious. The course of submission, obviously, can also be tragic, as it turned out in Meville’s great novel.

I know America was born by Revolution! America was birthed in an act of Rebellion! But, surely, after a couple of centuries, we must have learned something about unity. We’ve even been through one civil war. Are we approaching another?

Would that it were that noble. Instead, I’m sorry to report, the Demcrat disposition is merely superficial, egotistical, and petty. It is denigrating to the pride of the nation, and surely an international embarrassment. The scenario of prepared contradiction, the undermining of President Bush, who is a sincere, moral person (as opposed to Bill Clinton), I believe has wreaked a havoc within the social ethos of America that may turn into irreparable fragmentation, if it hasn’t already.

I don’t agree with President Bush on a number of major issues. But I respect him. I think he may have promoted some policies that are inimical to the nation. But, I find myself restrained by my respect. (I find the same situation with my own Comanche Nation chairman, Wallace Coffey. I disagree with him on important issues. Yet, I respect him. I do not campaign against him personally.)

I’m just wondering if our American people have simply lost the concept of respect itself. Clinton had brought the behavior of immoral, perverted, emotioanlly disturbed children into the White House. I do not respect Bill Clinton. Bush did bring back dignity to the office. Despite the desperate and faithful condemnation of Democrats, Bush is a respectable man. Few Democrat leaders are. Even if I found myself in agreement with some Democrat criticism of Bush, I would not respect the Democrats for it. I would still respect Bush.

Well, just some thoughts. Is Christian principle applicable at all to American political exchange? That’s the question. Is the Christian spirit active in the parties, in the media, in the social milieu of the nation? Can it be? How would it affect the political process and political behavior in general? Should we work to this end?

And we wonder what to do about the contradictions among the people of Iraq.

Posted by David Yeagley · January 11, 2007 · 9:47 am CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal




Read More Journal Posts »

11 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Respects Nothing // Jan 11, 2007 at 10:45 am   

    The Christian principle has changed because there are so many christian sects in America. This is one of the reasons why there was rebellion. Every “free (white) man” has a right to practice what they believe. Beliefs are different for the individual, let alone for the individuals who follow their specific Christian sect.

    We’re still here as a country. We haven’t divided on the belief of “freedom”. I think that is an integral part of what holds us together as a country.

    Respect comes both ways, Doc. It’s not a one way street.

    Personally, I see christian principles coming out of politics. Lots of Evangelicans this last election exercised christian principles when going to the polls. There was a Newsweek article on it. If I can find the link I’ll post it. It was an interesting article indeed.

  • 2 Davd Yeagley // Jan 11, 2007 at 11:15 am   

    I remember Steve Largent, here in Oklahoma. He ran for governor about five years ago. He lost. One of his principles was not talking about the opponent, not bad-mouthing him in any way. Largent just advocated his own ideas.

    Some people said he should have attacked the opposition. That’s the only way to win in politics. You have to say what’s WRONG with the opposition.

    I wonder about this. Largent was a pretty special person, I thought, in this regard. But he didn’t win.

  • 3 Kevin Ballard // Jan 11, 2007 at 1:07 pm   

    Dr. Yeagley,
    If only all the Democrats and all the Republicans in the Congress and the Senate could for just three months of time, all be on the same side for success for our efforts in the Middle East. To all be of one mind, on the same team, respect one another and have only good thoughts and words for one another. Just for a short time to see what a difference that would make.

  • 4 viewer // Jan 11, 2007 at 1:18 pm   

    If I was someone intent on seeing the U.S disintergrate, I would take special pleasure in the state it’s now in. There are extreme leftists and right wingers and their pundits only pull people away from moderation.

    Both routinely condemn one another and hate one another more passionately than any previous foe. It’s on both sides. Both sides feel they are correct and the spend their time and energy into trying to silence the opposition.

    So, I would say a group intent on bringing the U.S down some would encourage both sides to keep up the hatred for one another. It’s divide and conquer see.

  • 5 David Yeagley // Jan 11, 2007 at 4:48 pm   

    There is this factor: there are senators and groups in DC who definitely want America changed into something else, something different–in other words, Socialist/Communist. THat is the alternative.

    Their liberal ways have invited the police state we’re seeing develop before our eyes.

    In other words, opposition can actually represent something that’s BAD and WRONG. Not just a different opinion of how to do the same thing better. They want a completely different thing.

    They are taking advantage of the checks and ballances provided in our government structure.

  • 6 "Greetings, my son!" // Jan 11, 2007 at 5:46 pm   

    Just read the first couple paragraphs and I thought of a quote for the post:

    “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.”
    - HL Mencken

    Back to reading the post…

  • 7 "Greetings, my son!" // Jan 11, 2007 at 5:46 pm   

    Just read the first couple paragraphs and I thought of a quote for the post:

    “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.”
    - HL Mencken

    Back to reading the post…

  • 8 gf // Jan 12, 2007 at 2:35 am   

    Respect for Bush? Laughable!

    Respect for an imbicile who had led us into a preemptive war, lost many American lives needlessly, and continous down the same path thinking that at some point the American military can bail out his fautly policies?

    Ignorant!

    You are a sheep Yeagley! A sad, converted sheep, converted to white ways, “Christian” ways. This country was founded upon Christianity? Laughable! This country was founded upon blood, with attempts to convert and erase Native language and culture, to assimilate. It is sadly people like you who have completley become lobotomized. You turn away from any intelligence or Native sense. You have been brainwashed sadly.

    I for one will follow an imbecile down a river, simply because of stubbornness. I for one have the brain to think for myself.

    I for one know better.

  • 9 gf // Jan 12, 2007 at 2:37 am   

    I for one will NOT follow an imbecile down a river is what I meant!

  • 10 David Yeagley // Jan 12, 2007 at 11:36 am   

    GF, do you have a moral problem? You’ve missed the whole point of the piece. You ideology contributes to no one, not even Indians. That’s where you’re self-deceived.

  • 11 gf // Jan 12, 2007 at 6:43 pm   

    Yeagley,

    I don’t think I missed the point of the piece at all. I read exactly what you wrote. What you miss the point of is that I think it is total BS. Your idealogy is so different from what an educated or even the average Native viewpoint is, so I find it odd how you can assume that my viewpoint doesn’t contribute to “Indians”

    What you mean to say is my vision is different from the sell out one that you assume “contributes” to a Native future right?

You must log in to post a comment.