A Person of Faith

President Bush is a person of faith. I could hedge my bets and say he claims to be, but I have no way to judge his heart. But I will give this to him. I am also a person of faith. So the question arises, what do I, as a person of faith, owe him?

This is not an idle question; I've read dozens of articles over the last year that tried to suggest, obliquely or directly, that as a person of faith I should vote for President Bush. And I've read the suggestion, over and over again, that one of the things Liberals have against President Bush is his faith. I should therefore defend him against those who would attack him, and by extension all people of faith. This argument willfully ignores both Senator Kerry and President Clinton's faith, which gives you a hint as to how sincere it is.

That brings us to an article in the New York Times Sunday Issue by Ron Suskind, author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill." The article, entitled "Without a Doubt," deals with President Bush's religious faith and how it feeds his belief in his absolute rightness.

First things first, the article is too long and wanders a bit. It might read better in the magazine format, but I got a little lost towards the middle on where he was going. But it is still quite informative and at times even terrifying. It paints a picture of a President unable to brook even the slightest disagreement.

There is one story about Bush's particular brand of certainty I am able to piece together and tell for the record.

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

What's telling about this event is not that the President confused Sweden and Switzerland. That's easy enough to do. What's telling is that the President stuck to his guns, refused to be corrected, and the men around him knew enough not to make the correction.

How does this tie back into the President's faith or my own? Well Suskind sees them as connected, mostly because that is apparently how the President sees them. The President makes decisions, according to Suskind, based on a gut reaction and his faith. This doubtless works for him on the campaign trail, as he relates in discussion those who understand President Bush's faith.

That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!''

President Bush talks the language of faith, so those with faith gravitate to him. President Clinton had this gift in part as well, but Kerry seems to lack it.

Of course the large question is how does religious certainty make one a good political leader? Isn't that like asking, well, how does religious faith make one a good plumber? Well maybe a bit more honest (although not necessarily). Is President Bush's certainty and unwillingness to brook disagreement really a good thing? Does the mere existence of faith make one wise?

I have my own answer to these questions, from Matthew 7:16-20.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I don't want to imply that President Bush is a false prophet or an evil person on any level. But I do want to suggest that were his methods of governance divinely inspired, we would see the fruits of those labors, and they would be sweet. Instead, the best thing President Bush's supports can say about his presidency is that his programs will succeed down the road even if they haven't yet (at this point they usually shift discussion to how awful Senator Kerry is).

Anyway something to think about.