“Burning Bush brandishes Dostoevsky,” The Guardian, http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1395563,00.html, 21 January 2005 (from One Good Move).
Having written before on Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, and its historic precedents, I’m delighted by this new info.
President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
Not the Reagan Doctrine… but Better
The Reagan Doctrine
The All-Consuming Fire
Bush’s New Order of the Ages
One of the models of American leadership is that of Moses, leading God’s chosen people – then the Jews, now the Americans – towards a promised land, following a pillar of fire. At one point, according to the Bible, Moses was shown a sign: “Behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.”
But the key fire passage in the Burning Bush speech – “We have lit a fire as well; a fire in the minds of men” – actually has its origins in a novel by the 19th century Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Devils, about a group of terrorists’ ineffectual struggle to bring down the tyrannical Tsarist regime.
One of the characters declares that it is pointless to try to put out a fire started by terrorists: “The fire is in the minds of men and not in the roofs of houses,” he says.
…
Nonetheless, it is not clear whether Bush is identifying here with the terrorists – or the tyrants.
Is The Guardian perfect? No. It too easily falls into an anti-Bush mind disease — a syphilis that destroys rational discourse. But here, they are on to something.
Czarist Russia was a monstrosity, a cruel on the world. An out of touch and kleptomaniacal regime moderned their country only enough to steal more from it. Friends of the Czar profited immensley while the people rotted in misery. While not without its high points (Czar Alexander II’s Emancipation Proclamation was a few years ahead of Lincoln’s) it was a blot on the world.
It also fermented terrorism. As Richard Pipes has documented, even Russian liberals were drawn to terrorism, and high state officials were sympathetic. Russian-inspired terrorism was responsible for the Great War, and in the end the terrorism succeeded in ending a liberal experiment.
Who does this remind you of? (A “good job” to anyone who answers “the Saudis.”)
When I first interpreted the fire line, I wrote
The Presient compares freedom to a fire. This is very important, especially considering his earlier analogy of Communism to a ship. Communism was artificial. It was created by men and in calling it a shipwreck it was destroyed by Nature. It could not lost.
But freedom is a fire. It cannot be destroyed It is part of the nature of the world. Even in a nightmare future where all fire is extinguished it has to come back. Through a bolt of lightning it may come anywhere at anytime.
Fire burns its enemies. Fire consums and destroys. It is an elemental force. We are on the side of destructive grandeur of the world.
The analogy also echos the Chicago School of economic thought. During the dark days of FDR and Keynes, the economy was thought of as a giant machine that could be “fine tuned.” The 1970s in the West, and the entire history of the Soviet Union, shows exactly what “fine tuning” does. Chicago economists realized that the economy was an ecological system where there are forces and flows that are impossible to resist.
Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:
From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well – a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.
I stand by what I wrote before. But the hidden Saudi-Czarist tyrant analogy is inspiring. We recognize the nature of the Saudis. We warn of the dangers of terrors. We are watching. And we will act.
President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
Not the Reagan Doctrine… but Better
The Reagan Doctrine
The All-Consuming Fire