Ahmadinejad, Bush, and the Presumption of Good

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered British Channel 4's alternative Christmas address yesterday, sending a message of "happiness, prosperity, peace and brotherhood for humanity." On cue, the broadcast ignited a storm of criticism from those who site the Iranian president's
nuclear ambitions, his hardline views on Israel, and resolute rejection of homosexuality. But the message was moderate, with none of the harsh rhetoric for which he has gained notoriety. God, he said, had created "every human being with the ability to reach the heights of perfection". He also urged Muslims and Christians to work together towards a world of "love, brotherhood and justice".

Why the outrage? I tend not to watch but doesn't President Bush give a televised Christmas address each year? He is a resolute defender of his country's right to possess nuclear weapons (and his is the only country that's ever used them, twice). He threatens countries in the Middle East and even invades them, illegally and unjustly, killing tens of thousands of civilians. And yes, he absolutely rejects homosexuality and publicly supports legislation to limit the civil rights of gays.

I believe the difference is not merely hypocrisy or a double standard. It's something I've come to call a "presumption of good." When Iraqis, for example, kill civilians, it's their natural predisposition, it's just what they do. When the US uses predator drones in northern Afghanistan to kill civilians, it's an anomaly, a terrible misfortune, albeit a necessary one. The former, our enemies, are presumed evil; they mean to do bad and they do do bad. The latter, the US, is presumed good; "we" mean to do good but sometimes there are bad outcomes: Gotta break eggs to make an omelet!

Bush's Christmas message of peace and love is acceptable because that's the real him up there on the box, telling us to spread joy and goodness. This essentially very good man, however, due to the nature of his job, is sometimes forced to order missile strikes and even invasions that result in the deaths of thousand, even hundreds of thousands of people, and the destruction of the ways of life of millions more. But that's just his job. And he needs to do such for the greater good. Even his evil deeds are conducted out of desire to do good, or so we presume.

But Ahmadinejad! There's a different story. This man's fundamentally evil. He's just plain bad; there's not a good bone in his body. Therefore, the man we see on the television spreading a message of peace and love is a hoax. He's a liar. A fake. He's putting that face on to trick us; to distract us; to try to hide who he really is: a murdering bigot who is essentially bad.

One is presumed to be good. The other is presumed to be bad. But I think something is wrong with this picture. Neither, of course, is essentially good nor bad. Only our perceptions are twisted.