"When the USSR evaporated it seemed as if nothing had changed: The European Union accepted the American hegemony
and called it, as before, a partnership. It was also hard to turn down such a civilized president as Bill Clinton.
But with George W. Bush the rules have changed. The European Union is rethinking its affiliation with the American
brand of `Westernness.'" - Moshe Zimmerman, head of Hebrew University's history department, in an article about
Europe titled, "A New Balance" published in The Jerusalem Post on Fri., Feb. 14, 2003.
I found the above to be an absolutely shocking paragraph. It is obvious to me that Dr. Zimmerman and I have
very different views of what constitutes civilized. To me, the difference between civilized and barbarous is the
difference between those who serve others and those who serve themselves, those who build and those who enjoy the
fruits without labor. I believe that whether someone is civilized or barbarous is not just a veneer of manners or
lack thereof.
Dr. Zimmerman calls Bill Clinton civilized and, by implication, George W. Bush uncivilized, barbarous or wild.
This sounds to me more like a definition of polished and rough or couth and uncouth or charming and dull.
President Bush definitely has his unpolished moments. Perhaps another factor in Dr. Zimmerman's definition of
civilized is the ability and willingness to lie to make everyone feel better? His seems a more European definition
of civilized, one devoid of morality in its judgment. By this definition Saddam Hussein is probably considered
more "civilized" than George Bush. Perhaps Hitler would also have been more "civilized" by this definition. There
are accounts that he was very urbane, charming company. He was certainly a persuasive and hypnotic speaker.
In some ways, perhaps Dr. Zimmerman's definition is closer to the original intent of the word civilized. The
base-level meaning is polite. Perhaps I have been using the wrong term for what I mean. Bill Clinton was and
remains a net consumer. He consumes people and discards them. He is a user devoted to no higher ideal than
serving himself. There are accusations, some proven, that he was a serial philanderer, a rapist who physically
brutalizes women, a sexual harasser who treats women as toys for his gratification. But he remains charming and
diplomatic in his meetings with the European leaders. He smoothes over his dialogues with easy lies. He has a
cynical approach to life and power that most of the European leadership can appreciate.
George Bush is an able builder. He has built an incredibly strong team to support him. He works to build up
Americans, as he's shown by many of his programs. For instance, his tax cuts show trust of the American people to
manage and grow the economy. Mr. Bush also has character. He has overcome his flaws, such as demon alcohol;
whereas, Bill Clinton succeeded despite his flaws and lack of character. But, from Dr. Zimmerman's definition of
civilized, the president has three problems. The first is his ability to see black and white. That seems rather
na‹ve to European sensibilities. You'll never catch George Bush quibbling over what the definition of is is.
Second is Mr. Bush's habit of actually saying what he sees in black and white terms. "The Axis of Evil" is not
something a Europol would be caught saying with a straight face. It just isn't polite to call a spade a spade.
The third problem is one of polish. His verbal gaffes, such as "misunderestimate" give the Europols and arbiters
of what is "civilized" one more reason to look down their noses at President Bush.
I suppose the real question comes down to, "Does a man have to have character to be civilized?" Maybe not to
the literal, dictionary definition of the word civilized, the definition Dr. Zimmerman uses. Perhaps it doesn't
matter to most of America, either. America loves a rogue or a scamp. We love a good con man. But, I think we
respect a man of character. But which is more civilized, the silver-tongued rogue or the stumble-tongued pillar?
For my part, I know which I would rather trust with power. The man who builds, spreads civilization, civilizing
even if not civilized. Those who judge by the surface veneer, the patina of manners that hides the soul of a
shark, are bound to be bitten in the end, for the rogue builds nothing. The rogue spreads decay and
decivilization. If he be civilized, give me the wild man.
F. B. Knight is Curmudgeon-in-Residence at the Attila the Hun School of Management. He can be reached for questions
at
fbk@attilathehunschool.net.
