Moral bankruptcy
Toolbox
Published: August 26, 2005
It is easy to make fun of the Rev. Pat Robertson, the televangelist who provoked outrage earlier this week when he said the United States should assassinate Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela.
It is easy to denounce his presumption and arrogance and to point to the hypocrisy of a so-called religious leader who advises murder.
It is tempting to dismiss Robertson as a lunatic from the political fringe, except that if he were, his words would not have drawn so much attention and the Bush administration would not have been so fearful of denouncing him. It is clear Robertson represents something in our culture — after all, he was a presidential candidate in 1988 and his prominence as a televangelist means he has a following among a significant segment of the electorate.
Rather than dismissing Robertson's words, it is better to consider the presumptions that would allow someone to conclude that assassinating a foreign leader would be morally permissible or politically wise. Those presumptions, rather than Robertson's thoughts on Chavez, are the larger danger.
Of course, anyone looking to justify assassination can always begin with the Hitler example. Wouldn't it have been better to kill Hitler than to allow him to slaughter millions? Weren't the German officers who attempted to do so justified?
When we are confronted with a dictator who has conquered nations, slaughtered millions and declared war on the United States, we may ask that question. But there is a considerable distance between Hitler and an irritating, democratically elected Third World leader who is the source of foreign policy headaches. The only way to travel that distance is to view the United States as the embodiment of moral righteousness.
If the United States is morally righteous, any threat to our interests may be judged to be evil. Access to Venezuelan oil then becomes our right as a virtuous people. It is not such a leap for Robertson to conclude that our righteousness gives us title to any of the world's resources upon which we have come to depend. It is imperialism with a halo.
Robertson also assumes that because Chavez is friends with Fidel Castro, he is a fomenter of communism and terrorism. (Vermont Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie has himself had some dealings with the Castro regime. So far no one has accused him of being a communist or a terrorist.)
The presumptions that lead Robertson to his conclusions with regard to Venezuela are the same presumptions that have taken the United States to Iraq. The Bush administration has adopted a strategic policy of world preeminence. It has been clear in every area that Bush believes the United States need not cater to world opinion or even to accept norms of moral behavior. It has jettisoned international conventions banning torture. Bush believes the United States, a righteous power, can do what it wants. Within the Bush administration the democratic impulse, which honors human rights, is at war with the imperialist impulse, which presumes its own virtue.
Robertson's rhetoric has extended the imperialist position to its logical conclusion and because Robertson's words are ludicrous on their face, we can see the moral bankruptcy of a view that allows the United States to put itself above moral norms in the name of morality.
Murder is neither morally permissible nor politically wise. We ought to know that by now.
40