George W. Bush And The Daughter of Time

by Nicole

Over the weekend I just finished reading Josephine Tey's classic mystery The Daughter of Time, which reexamines the evidence surrounding the disappearance of the Princes In The Tower. Whether the culprit was Richard III (the last Plantagenet king), whom traditionalists hold accountable, or Henry VII (father of Henry VIII), whom Tey and many modern historians think most likely responsible for the murder of the young heirs to the English throne, the similarities between Henry VII and George W. Bush couldn't escape my notice.

Both usurpers to the throne came to power under highly dubious circumstances. Bush thanks to some election jiggery-pokery; the first of the Tudor kings with the help of power-hungry factions of the English nobility who colluded with the French.

Both had to look to the law to ratify their newly seized seats of power. Bush via some friendly Supreme Court judges; Tudor via some questionable acts of a conspiratorial Parliament.

Both have bent the law for their own gain. Tudor by retroactively declaring himself king from the day before the battle in which he took Richard III's life and crown, thus ensuring that anyone who fought against him was by default guilty of treason (which was punishable by death). As for Bush, where do I start?

Both are masters of Morton's Fork, a paradoxical form of reasoning, whereby a choice between two alternate options ultimately leads to the same unpleasant conclusion:

• Henry VII: If a subject lived in luxury, they could clearly afford to pay tax. Conversely, if a subject lived frugally, it was a sign they were hoarding their wealth and could therefore also afford to pay tax.
  
  
  
• Bush: If Saddam Hussein refused to let the weapons inspectors into Iraq, it would serve as proof that the Iraqi dictator had weapons of mass destruction, and would be considered grounds for war. If Hussein cooperated with the weapons inspectors, and no WMDs were found, it would serve as proof that he was hiding them, and it would be considered grounds for war.

Both were masters of manipulating the law of the land for their own political gain. Tudor created the Star Chamber, a conclave of Privy Counsellors whose rule was essentially above the law, while Bush created an ever-expanding concept of Executive Privilege.

Finally, both were masters at revising, and rewriting their own self-serving histories in their own lifetimes:

• Henry VII
  Reason For War Version 1:0 The Princes in Tower, and therefore their sister Elizabeth of York, were illegitimate and had no claim to the throne.
  Reason For War Version 2:0 Elizabeth of York, who was now Henry's wife, was a legitimate heir (as were The Princes In The Tower if they lived), and therefore as her husband he was the legitimate King of England.
  

  
  

• Bush:
  Reason For War Version 1.0 We invaded Iraq because Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
  Reason For War Version 2.0 We invaded Iraq because of WMDs.
  Reason For War Version 3.0 We invaded Iraq to bring freedom to the country.

Ultimately it's taken historians five hundred years begin to see through the (Thomas More constructed) pro-Tudor Tonypandy (faulty collective memory or popular history). In 2508 will school kids be reading about Hussein’s WMDs and personal involvement in 9/11? Lets hope the historians who chronicle Bush's reign are less biased and see through his contemporary attempt at Tonypandy before putting pen to paper. In the meantime, don’t believe everything your history teachers told you (or Shakespeare or Showtime for that matter).

| 03/17/08 | Book Club