PAGE 5
ORTH COAST TIMES E A G L E , JULY 2003
BUSH’S BASKET
WHY THE PRESIDENT HAD TO SHOW HIS BALLS
party animal turned commander-in-chief is Prince Hal to his own
Falstaff.
Overcoming is a powerful American theme: hence the
proliferation of log cabins and front porches in the iconography
of Presidents, even some who grew up in splendor. Bush may
be a master of populist pretense, but he can't claim to be self-
made. His saga rests on his quest to be a man.The real triumph
of Bush’s media team is not a matter of lighting and positioning
but of creating a Presidential persona that radiates steadfast
ness, plainspokenness, sexual continence, and righteous religi
osity. These are the hallmarks of conservative macho.
But something about Bush’s image seems as artificially
enhanced as his crotch. His need to flaunt it can be read as a
response to anxiety. If you have to show your balls, maybe it’s
because you can’t take them for granted. That isn’t just Bush’s
problem. If macho seems so tragicomically x-treme these days,
it’s because many men think masculinity could actually disap
pear.
All men must cope with the complications of feminism.
I would argue that the demand for sexual equality is a major
reason for the global rise of fundamentalism. Bush owes his
fortune to this movement in America, but his appeal goes far
beyond the Christian right. He represents a model that invites
female initiative and counsel but not control. This is the Dred
Scott compromise of our time, and it’s evident in Bush's admin
istration as well as in his marriage to an intelligent woman who
knows how to stay three steps behind her husband. But Bush
also embodies the primal uncertainty many nien feel in the face
of sexual change. This angst, which threatens to pop up like a
sour belch, solidifies his bond with threatened men.They identify
with his struggle to carry off the feat of macho and many women
empathize with that effort. A lot of people root for Bush to make
it as a man, and they’re happy to see his big basket (even if it
does suggest a male version of the push-up bra).
PHOTOGRAPH BY JENNIFER WARBURG
BY RICHARD GOLDSTEIN
In the annals of infotainment, few moments match the
sight of George Bush leaping from the cockpit of a fighter jet
and striding across the deck of a carrier at sea. Top Gun: The
Pseudo Event enchanted the public, horrified liberals, and
galvanized the press. Suddenly media mavens noticed that
Bush’s handlers have elevated the photo-op to pure cinema.
So what else is new?
Actually there was something novel about this occasion,
but it passed utterly below the radar. Discretion prevented any
one from mentioning that Bush’s outfit gave him a very vivid
basket. This was the first time a President literally showed his
balls. Check it out — your subconscious already has.
This manly exhibition was no accident. The media team
that timed Bush's appearance to catch just the right tone of sun
light must have chosen that uniform and had him try it on. I can't
prove they gave him a sock job, but clearly they thought long
and hard about the crotch shot. As students of the cinematic,
they would know the trick is to make the bulge seem natural,
so it registers without raising an issue. Tight jeans (a staple of
Bush's dress-down attire) can achieve this look, but nothing
works like fighter-pilot drag, with its straps that frame and shape
the groin. Most people presume this effect is merely functional.
That frees the imagination to work, and work it does, in men and
women alike.
Say what you will about the male body being objectified.
We may expect a dude to display himself like an Ambercrombie
& Fitch model — but the President? Clearly Bush's handlers
want to leave the impression that he’s not just courageous and
competent but hung. Why is this message important to send?
That’s a very salient question, if only because it’s unlikely to be
addressed.
Among modem Presidents, John F. Kennedy projected
the studliest aura (though the sexual evidence was closely held
a the time). Yet, in an era of body-hugging menswear, JFK wore
loose-fitting suits. Bill Clinton was perhaps the ultimate rogue in
chief, but he shrank from showing his body — he wouldn’t have
dared. Cartoonists alluded to Clinton’s libido by giving him a
large bulbous nose, which became his emblem. Look at the face
cartoonists have given Bush: The ears are outsized while the
nose is modest. Big ears are not exactly phallic signifiers;
if anything, they connote a state of permanent childhood, d la
Mickey Mouse. In charicature Bush looks like a perplexed piker.
There’s a reason he once drew the ultimate Texas dis: “All hat
and no beef." This sissifying contempt still lingers under the
hoopla about Bush's prowess.
9/11 scared America into solidarity, but if people per
ceive the Republican agenda as an equal threat, their doubts
about Dubya's manhood will resurface. They will notice his
reliance on strong-willed advisers, his association with a patriar
chal father, and even his diminutive size. Karl Rove's rangers
must be aware of this possibility since they’ve crafted an image
to counter Bush's macho problem.His public affect—the narrow
ed eyes, the locked-and-loaded look — is calculated to annul his
liabilities, present and past. Imagine what the Republicans would
make of a Democrat who was a cheerleader in prep school, who
wrangled his way into Yale on family connections, and who
weaseled out of active duty. Clinton was butch-baited for less.
Bush could easily have lived up to his homestate nick
name, 'Shrub' — and in the early hours of 9/11, he did. But
rehabilitation is the master narrative of Bush’s presidency. This
Richard Goldstein wrote this article for The Village Voice.
GOD’S CHOSEN MAN
BY REV. DR. C. WELTON GADDY
“Under the cloak of the church the state decays."
-MIGUEL de CERVANTES
ASTORIA, OREGON 97103
(503) 325-8708
If America remains preoccupied with terrorism, the
sexual politics I’m describing will affect the 2004 election only
obliquely. But if voters focus on other things, the macho issue
could be as crucial as it was in 2000, when Al Gore was
wussified. Rove's rangers have already begun bashing the
Democratic candidate most likely to make Bush look like all
cake and no beef: John Kerry.
First they questioned his patriotism, then they accused
him of looking French, and now they’re landing on his wife,
casting her as a hyper-Hillary. Teresa Heinz Kerry's outspoken
ness, her devotion to her dead former husband, her current
prenup, and her vow to maim any man who steps out on her
are all being used to portray her as a ball-breaking bitch and
John Kerry as her emasculated victim. So powerful is this
harridan image that it actually allows the Bushies to bash Teresa
for her wealth. If she doesn’t finance Kerry's campaign, she's
dissing him; if she does, he's a kept man.
Kerry isn’t the front-runner, yet the White House has
singled him out for sexual calumny. To understand this fixation,
you have to consider Kerry’s stature (he towers over Bush), his
war record (he received a Silver Star in Vietnam), and his sloe
eyed Kennedy aura (his initials are JFK). In another era, these
would be clear signals of masculinity. Today, you have to flash
your stash, and Kerry's patrician style doesn't lend itself to that.
But he does have those tales from 'Nam, and in a one-on-one
he could expose the angst under Bush's aggression. If the econ
omy tanks while Iraq seethes, we just might have a real contest.
Fasten your crotch straps. With luck, we're in for a
bumpy ride.
President Bush often reminds me of a first year
seminary student who, after one course in theology, thinks
his particular view of faith answers all of life's most complex
questions. As A Baptist minister for over 40 years, I hold sacred
the beliefs inherent in my faith, yet as a Christian I can tell you
the President does not always speak for me, nor can he claim
to speak for all Christians in America. Christians like all other
people of faith are incredibly diverse in their thoughts and
political ideas.
Just as religious leaders must refrain from trying
to dictate the political beliefs of their congregates, political
leaders must disdain the misguided illusion that they speak as
prophets of God's will.lt is not remotely within the realm of the
President’s executive duties to voice and advance particular
sectarian priorities.
Yet at the National Religious Broadcasters convention
(in early March), the President sat by and listened approvingly
to himself being described as God's chosen man for this hour
in our nation. He then made one statement that I find deeply
disturbing: he linked an imminent American attack on Iraq to his
understanding of Christian morality, saying that this attack would
be, “in the highest moral traditions of our country." How can he
say that when for four centuries Christians refused to serve in
the military?
The President of the United States is the political leader
of the nation, not the religious leader. Just as religion should
not be a test for any political candidate for public office, religion
should not be a tool of any political leader in a public office.
In no way should the President of the United States politicize
religion, or by the use of religious language from one particular
religious tradition, alienate citizens from other traditions or no
tradition.
The distinction that I see between the language in
President Bush’s statements and the kind of historic civil religion
that had previously existed in America, is that President Bush
is drawing from a very particular faith tradition — Evangelical
Christianity — and is using that language to advance policies
and to make arguments for the support of his various initiatives
(as quoted in the Associated Press, Chicago Tribune and Boston
Globe).
That language, whether used in statements to comfort,
challenge, or guide the nation, leaves out whole segments of
Americans who don’t understand its meaning and don’t identify
with, or in many instances even agree with its substance.
Using this language, the President has escalated every
issue to a kind of transcendent religiously/morally substantive
subject. Through this language, the President is telling people
who disagree with or question his public policies that these are
not just political issues, these are moral issues. That's akin to
playing the Christian trump card.
Democracy has been crippled. No longer can Americans
practice healthy debate. By employing this language, the Presi
dent has succeeded in framing every American who questions
his policies as opposing good — good that ought to triumph over
evil When everything is absolutized in this way, debate stops:
the moment there is a difference of opinion it's not just another
idea, it's an expression of evil.
How dare any politician, including the President, even
implicitly suggest that God is a kind of mascot for the nation.
Affirmation of a particular faith tradition must never be made
a litmus test for measuring patriotism.
This article is distributed by the Interfaith Alliance.