Bush’s Death Watch

Bush’s Death Watch

In rather the same way as new movies are now “reviewed” in terms of their first weekend gross, new candidates have become subject to evaluation by the dimensions of their “war chest.” This silly,


In rather the same way as new movies are now “reviewed” in terms of their first weekend gross, new candidates have become subject to evaluation by the dimensions of their “war chest.” This silly, archaic expression defines other equally vapid terms like “credibility” and “electability” and “name recognition,” which become subliminally attached to it. In many cases the crude cash-flow measure is as useful in deciding on a politician as it is in making a choice at the multiplex; you might as well see the worthless movie that everyone else has seen, or express an interest in the unbearably light “front runner,” so as not to be left out of the national “conversation.”

The hidden costs, alas, include a complete erosion of the critical faculties. I am as enthralled as the next person by the sheaves of money assembled for George Walker Bush. (What did he do to be shorn at birth of his Herbert?) But I’m even more fascinated by the fact that on June 17 he signed his hundredth death warrant. There was an execution on the day of his inauguration as governor of Texas, which I don’t count, and there has been one every two weeks or so ever since. Part of a governor’s job is to review capital cases: This means that Bush has either (a) been doing little else but reviewing death sentences or (b) been signing death warrants as fast as they can be put in front of him.

This may also be helping him gain some of that much needed “foreign policy experience” about which the pundits have made the occasional frown. State officials from the Philippines and Guatemala have been touring lethal chambers in the United States as part of their research into improved methods, and according to Amnesty International a Filipino official was allowed to watch a killing in Texas in 1997. He wouldn’t have had to hang about very long to get this job experience.

The thorny question of race–always such a minefield for the aspiring Republican candidate–also gets a workout by this means. Many people remember the case of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again pickax-murderess who showed–at least by the standard of Christian fundamentalism–signs of having been rehabilitated. Governor Bush snuffed her in February of last year, over the protests of Pat Robertson and others. But had he commuted her sentence, he would have been faced with executing a black woman, Erica Sheppard, who was next in line on the female death row and had forgone her appeal. Spare a photogenic white girl and then kill a defiant black one? Better to do away with both and avoid the fuss altogether. (Sheppard has since recovered her determination to appeal, and recently took part in a protest against the strip-searching of female inmates in front of male guards, another feature of the Texas criminal justice system.)

Then there’s the aspect that touches “communities of faith,” or whatever you choose to call them. Governor Bush has proposed that the social safety net be maintained by religious charities, and he hopes to make these points of light his auxiliaries in ending such welfare as we still know. It’s the battiest soup-kitchen scheme since Theodore Roosevelt discussed handing over American social welfare to the Salvation Army. But it runs up against a potentially interesting conflict: At least twenty-eight major religious groups in this country have declared against capital punishment. Might not now be the time to ask them if they will agree to ladle charity on behalf of a man who conducts photo-op and opinion-poll executions?

Some Lone Star cases for your perusal: An open homosexual named Calvin Burdine was sentenced to death after being given a court-appointed lawyer who referred to gay men as “queers” and “fairies,” and who fell asleep during the trial. In 1998 two Texas defendants were executed for crimes committed when they were 17. (That year, Texas held twenty-seven of the seventy-four juveniles on death row in the United States.) Both Joseph Cannon and Robert Carter had suffered head injuries in infancy, had been subject to lurid physical abuse and tested at an abysmal level for mental retardation. Their executions violated the accepted international standard that prohibits the death penalty for the underaged, as well as the presumption that it is wrong to slay the mentally ill or incompetent. You probably don’t want to know how perfunctory was the presentation of the state’s evidence, how tenth-rate was the performance of the court-appointed defense or how wretched was the end. (The humane lethal-injection needle blew out of Joseph Cannon’s arm as the “procedure” began; the witnesses were hurried from the room and then brought back to view a second and more conclusive try.)

Perhaps you wonder if capital punishment is unevenly applied, as respects race and class, in the state of Texas. Wonder no longer. Just read the Amnesty report Killing With Prejudice: Race and the Death Penalty in the USA (322 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10001; $6). Finally, the man who is awaiting execution as I write–Larry Robison–is a paranoid schizophrenic who, along with his family, asked repeatedly for treatment of his unstable condition before cracking up. The state that failed him in the first instance is now stepping in, at vast expense, to warehouse him on death row and to snuff him on the taxpayer’s dime.

Yet most people can still mention only two things about George Walker Bush–his extreme opulence and his commitment to “compassionate conservatism.” This is the story, and the media are sticking to it. Every time I get on the radio or television I mention his assembly-line execution policy, and every time I do so I get treated as if I had developed Tourette’s syndrome in church. Let that go, and on to the next question. Yet Bush’s addiction to the death cult actually touches every important aspect of what could be described as his “politics,” and perhaps only the commitment of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Bill Bradley to the same policy prevents it from surfacing as the “issue” it deserves to be.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy