The President of Good & Evil: Questioning the Ethics of George W. Bush

This is the first Peter Singer book I have read, and I now plan to read more. Unlike a lot of anti-Bush books that appeared before the election, I believe this one is still worth reading. It retains its value because it focuses on ethics, morals, and philosophical thought (or the lack thereof), not simply politics. Singer doesn't come out and shout, "Bush is lying!" or "Bush is wrong!...". He instead uses several methods to point out inconsistencies between the president's words and deeds. I believe that the result will more than stand up to any objective review, and may serve to change the opinions of an open-minded reader on any number of the subjects addressed. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in philosophy, ethics, political science, or current events.

In contrast to Michael Moore's emotionally charged Hollywood-style rant against George Bush, Peter Singer takes a methodical and largely-detached academic approach to deconstructing George Bush. I find Peter Singer's approach much more convincing. Each chapter analyzes Bush's ethics on a different issue: justice and opportunity in America, civil liberties, religion, America as a good world citizen, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America as the world's policeman, and finally a critique of George Bush's personal ethics. On every issue, Singer meticulously contrasts George Bush's lofty public pronouncements against the actual deeds of his administration. His arguments are logical, persuasive and fully supported with 41 pages of references. The discrepancies are so glaring that one often asks, "How does he get away with this?" Peter Singer is clearly one of the greatest minds of our times and in many respects it is beneath him to deal with a topic as transitory as the Bush administration when he could be writing on more enduring topics such as euthanasia or animal rights. However, he has done a great service to American politics by exposing the ethical contractions of George Bush and the right-wing conservative movement.

If you belive that this country and the world would be a much better place if people took the time to think through their opinions and try to maintain consistent ethical beliefs then this book is for you. Singer is a revolutionary philosopher not because he espouses any new ethical theories but rather for the thorough manner he extrapolates innteresting moral conclusions from basic ethical principles. In this book he cuts through any and all political mudslinging and spin, leaving only the facts and reason as a guide. Not only is Singer systematicaly logical in his condemnation of the President he is also not without humility. When Bush deserves credit, he gets it (like his action towards AIDS treatment in Africa.) Singer seeems to have no agenda toward the President when the book begins. No axe to grind. Because of his persistent fairness Singer has written the Presidents most damning and justified condemnation. Critics might call Singer simplistic, deconstructing complex moral questions into simple black and white principals. This criticism is not in itself substancial unless someone could cite a specific example of incorrect ethical reasoning on the part of Mr. Singer. They would be hard pressed to do so. Critics be warned, Singer is no simpleton. His simple writing style is a deliberate choice on his part to make the arguments as clear and consise as possible. He understands that tax policy is a complicated and thorny issue but he avoids the numerous tangents that could arise from this issue and sticks to his subject, the ethical consistency of GW. Because of his logical and forceful arguments Singer has shown more conclusively,and with much less bile, that our President is very, very, ethically troubled.

As a sort of corrective to such recent books on the current occupant of the White House as David Frum's "The Right Man" and John Podhoretz's "Bush Country," noted ethicist Peter Singer's book "The President of Good & Evil" takes a dispassionate but quietly devastating look at George W. Bush's ethical failings in office. It should be required reading for all Americans who are planning on voting this November. Singer doesn't get angry and heated over the way that Bush has handled the events of the past few years. His is a very subdued, rational approach, and as such it is more effective (and, incidentally, more devastating) than fire breathing rhetoric would have been. He simply subjects Bush's statements to intense ethical scrutiny, and it will surprise no one who doesn't get their opinions from Fox News that, time after time, even when Singer goes out of his way to give him the benefit of the doubt, Bush comes up short. My favorite example of this is when Bush is pre-taping a radio address the day before he's scheduled to go to California. The text of the broadcast read: "Today I am in California," but Bush kept petulantly saying, "But I'm not in California." Singer's comment on this inane behavior is priceless: "Taking the obligation to be truthful so literally suggests an arrested moral development." And the analysis that flows from this insight, inspired by the work of Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, is not only plausible, it's pretty terrifying to consider the very real possibility that we have been led into war and hundreds of Americans have lost their lives because the man running the country is morally retarded. But I wouldn't bet against it. Regardless of whether you support George W. Bush or not (and I should think it's pretty clear by now that I do not), you owe it to yourself to read "The President of Good & Evil" and consider what it says very carefully before you go into the polling place next November. There's a lot at stake, and this book might make a difference. I hope it will.

The President of Good and Evil is about ethics. It takes on the task of reconstructing George W. Bush?s moral philosophy from what he has said and done, and holds this moral philosophy to close scrutiny. Singer?s purpose is the critical assessment of the President?s ethical stance, which is shared by tens of millions of Americans in a wide range of subjects.The book?s prominent feature is the comprehensive, rational analysis of the ethical defensibility of Bush?s position. The facts and issues raised might not be novel to the informed public, which is not to say that the book is not well documented. Singer covers a vast amount of information relevant to the ethical issues addressed; he is not concerned with journalistic novelty but with the case that can be made by using what has already been properly documented.Singer?s writing and logic are clear and straightforward. He is also very careful to asses Bush?s position from a fair standpoint, generally centering his analysis on the best case that can be made for the President?s ethical view. Singer does not confront his own utilitarian position with it, except where Bush himself has taken a seemingly utilitarian stance. The book is about Bush?s moral philosophy, not Singer?s. Most of the time, Bush seems to appeal to commonly accepted principles such as Human Rights and Just War theory, and it is in the light of them that the author builds his argument. Singer is concerned with the consistency of Bush?s ethics and the honesty of his statements, or with how these compare to Bush?s own actions. In the case of the President?s frequent appeals to faith -religious or not- he dwells on the role of reason and argument in a Democracy, not questioning this faith itself but the role we should reasonably assign to it under a democratic decision making process.It might not be a surprise that the author often finds Bush?s positions to be indefensible. The interest, however, lies not in the conclusion but in the comprehensive and well grounded argument that Singer makes, which is especially relevant because of the broad appeal of its premises and its rigorous logic.