Howard Fineman: Bush Is Sticking To His Guns No Matter What
Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (an accurate measure of the conventional journalistic wisdom both in terms of what is out there an what the narrative is likely to be) on President George Bush’s State Of The Union Speech:
George W. Bush wanted to be Harry Truman (patron saint of embattled presidents) in his State of the Union speech, but he may have reminded voters of Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove. You know the famous scene: the giddy pilot in a cowboy hat hops aboard his own payload to Armageddon.Say this about the president: he is going to stick with his vision, his strategy and his decisions on Iraq – no matter what the world, the American voters, the new Democratic Congress, the ’08 presidential contenders or even his fellow Republicans want.
Fineman capsualizes the real State of the Union: at the top of it, is a President who has eschewed the highly touted CEO model (since most CEOs eventually are responsive to the stockholders) of management and each day seems even more isolated to an extent that he’s now making LBJ during the Vietnam War seem to be by comparison someone who set his war policy by world and national consensus. Even his political figleaf seems to be falling off. A few more Fineman excerpts:
Without a trace of irony, he told the Congress: “Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure.â€? But most Americans have concluded that we already have failed.….He seems to live in a different world. Most of us increasingly live in a wiki world, where the digital, online search for information and enlightenment is a collaborative enterprise – the cumulative, exponential power of many minds….
….Our president, whom I used to view as a gregarious man, does not scour the world for information. He likes the “one riot, one rangerâ€? Texas Ranger theory of life. I think back to 2000, and remember the bus he rented on the campaign trail in New Hampshire. It had a big captain’s chair, and even a small Persian rug and a clock on the wall, but there was something isolating about it – it was not configured to accommodate a big crowd of people gathering around. He seemed to be relieved to escape into it.
Now he wants the Democrats to join him in creating a “special advisory council on the war on terror.� It may be a little late for that – like asking them to join him for the payload ride down.
Indeed, it is difficult to find a historical parallel for the kind of increasingly isolated on all fronts status that Bush is quickly assuming. At least not in a democracy.
Be sure to read our post and extensive news/weblog roundup on reaction to Bush’s speech HERE.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
25 Responses to “Howard Fineman: Bush Is Sticking To His Guns No Matter What”
I certainly didn’t vote for failure. I voted for Gore in 2000 and then Kerry in 2004. The ones who voted for failure, we need to talk. No anger, just real dialogue. My first question is, what the hell were you thinking?
“Next comes the airing of grievances. I got a lotta problems with you people!”
-Frank Costanza, the Festivus episode of Seinfeld
This excerpt is very telling. The pundits, bloggers, and many voters are increasingly angry because they don’t accept that our government isn’t led by consensus. There’s a good reason that the US is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Foreign policy can’t turn as abruptly as you’d like on public opinion, even if (or especially when?) that public is war weary.
CStanley, I really can’t agree with that at all. If there is “anger”, and I do not concede that as the governing emotion, it is because the policies of this administration have been a failure, the president is completely disinterested in changing them, and keeps asking us to approve him in “more of the same”. Which, coincidentally, is more like what Fineman is saying. It is not a failure to govern by concensus that is upsetting to people, but rather a failure to recognize failure and shift gears and accept that someone else may be right.
[...] We start with two from Joe Gandleman’s, The Moderate Voice. Joe heavily quotes with and agrees with Howard Fineman’s take at MSNBC here. They both give takes on the speech in much better words than I can. [...]
DBK,
I was specifically referencing Fineman’s own comment. My paraphrase of it would be, “Hey, a lot of us read Wiki and everything, and there’s a lot of smart people blogging and the collective opinion of all of these smart people is what should prevail, not the president’s opinion.”
Sorry, but that’s not the way the system works. We elect, he leads. We don’t like the way he leads, we vote him out.
You (and Fineman) assume that hubris and stubbornness govern Bush’s decisionmaking, and I would agree that there’s been plenty of that. But consider that perhaps Bush does hear the criticisms but doesn’t hear any alternative course being offered by this “cumulative, exponential power of many minds” of which Fineman gushes.
And the surge plan is not “more of the same”; it addresses most of the errors that have been made. Of course it may be too little, too late, and anyone who criticizes it on that basis is making an honest argument. Still that leaves the question, “If not this, than what?”
Well if he’s so adamant about sticking to his guns he better prepare to get f*cked in the a*$ when all is said and done. But that’s his choice so oh well. :-/
CStanley, with all due respect, your opinions are contradictory. If we aren’t a government “by consensus” then why is it incumbent upon us to come up with “alternatives?” In fact there have been many suggested alternatives beginning with not invading Iraq in 2003! Most recently the “wise men” of the Iraq Study Commission offered a plethora of alternatives, all of which Bush ignored and brushed off. Why is it so hard to admit that Bush is at best a mediocre intellect whose entire life history has been one failure after another. He does not listen to anyone that he does not agree with and his concept of leadership has always been “my way or the hghway.” The problem is with him, not the American people or the American system of government. I do not know how the results of the Novembers elections can be read as anything other than a complete repudiation of Bush and his policies. It doesn’t matter whether you call it a “surge,” an “augmentation.” or “escalation.” the entire idea is mired in magic thinking (“If I really really want a different result all I have to do is hope…”) and is contrary to to both the weight of the evidence and common sense. At the end of the day more people will have to die for a mistake.
I am a fan of Slim Pickens and George W. Bush is no Slim Pickens. W doesn’t even deserve to carry Dan Qauyles pen to a PNAC signing.
These constant comparisons to Harry Truman, are getting annoying; in no way is GW in Truman’s league. Truman did get us bogged down in Korea- (which was very wisely rectified by Eisenhower), and his popularity was at a very low ebb when he left office. But there the comparisons end. He made some very smart decisions as well: Supporting the US entrance into the UN, fulfilling the provisions of the Marshall Plan, making the tough decisions that avoided the mainland invasion of Japan are a few. As a Missouri Senator, he fought war profiteers with vigor —-no comparison there with Bush’s no-bid contracts for campaign loyalists.
The real issue is competence—the war has been so badly mismanaged by this president, that most sentient beings are now seeing him as an encumbrance to success. No one should be blamed for fearing to trust someone with such a poor track record for decision-making. Why should we believe that anything has changed now???
With all due respect to you too, Jason, you’re twisting my argument. We aren’t a government “by consensus”. So it’s not incumbent on anyone to come up with alternatives. But if you are someone who believes that you have something to add to the discussion, someone whose voice should be heard by those who were elected to make the decisions, then it’s incumbent on you not to just say “DON’T do this”, but to also say, “Instead, DO this.”
Not true. The ISG recommendations called for a similar increase in numbers of troops, similar political goals of de-baathification, progress on oil revenue sharing, etc, and similar calls for a gradual turning over of security operations to the Iraqis. Most of the daylight between ISG and Bush’s plan is in the idea that we should invoke “help” from Iran and Syria (which would have been tantamount to siding with the pro-Iranian theocrats who back the Shiite militias in Iraq, resulting in slaughter of the Sunnis.)
Not sure where I denied any of that.
Well, quite easily since there were lots of other factors: GOP corruption and lack of oversight in Congress (particularly with the Foley scandal), religious right voters becoming disenchanted, fiscal conservatives who may have wanted tax cuts but didn’t want to see spending outstripping revenues, the Democratic party getting smart and running moderates instead of left wingers, etc, etc. Not to mention that even when you factor in Iraq, there still wasn’t a clear mandate about what the voters wanted Bush to do instead of “staying the course”. Which takes us back to my first point…
CStanley,
The constant hue and cry for alternatives was met by numerous offers of alternatives. The Bush response has been “I’ll give you more of the same.” No, he is not following a course similar to that offered by the ISG. While I understand there is an enormous desire to rush into another war, this time with Iran, on the part of the Bush administration, your dismissal of both Iran and Syria is disingenuous and false. The Iranian people rebuffed the Ahmadinejad government in their recent elections, showing there is a bit of popular will for a less confrontational stance. That represents opportunity, something Bush studiously avoids. Recently there were back channel conversations between Israel and Syria that seemed on the path towards a real treaty. The conversations were so encouraging, both parties tried to take them to the front channel. The Bush administration quashed them, and I have no idea why that was nor can I find any logic and sense in it. So another opportunity was lost. This goes beyond mere stubbornness. It is now criminal neglect of opportunities to lower the temp and create stability. It’s a damned shame that we have a dangerous and confrontational world, but when there arises an opportunity to lower the level of confrontation and, in turn, decrease the danger, that is something that a wise leader does not reject. If there is anger, look to Bush’s actions and constant failure for a cause. Pretending that there is anger because we aren’t governed by concensus is a straw man.
Now if you want to go into a philosophical discussion of government by concensus, that’s fine. You seem to have decided on your own that only one side of the argument is valid. In fact, historically, there has always been a tension between government by concensus, or, rather, government according to the wishes of the majority of a constituency versus the idea that a representative is elected for his or her specific views and abilities and that it is the representative’s duty in a republic to use his or her own judgment exclusively, having been elected for it. My own view is that the latter is something of a false notion because the representative, while expected to use his or her own best judgment, is elected to represent the best interests of the constituency, and that constituency needs to be heard in order to understand those interests. If there is a sharp divergence between the constituency’s view of its own best interests and the representative’s view, it is incumbent on that representative to listen very carefully. If the representative continues to implement his or her own way, in defiance of the general opinion, then that way had damned well better work. So far, in the case of the Iraq fiasco, we have been treated to a massive failure, costing lives and money beyond all predictions and reckoning. Now we are being asked to stick with more of the same, only it is even more of more of the same. That ain’t cuttin’ it.
Besides the issue of talks with Iran and Syria, what other policy prescription has he ignored from the ISG?
And curiously, this opportunity presented itself during a period when Bush has been taking a hard line with Ahmadeinejad. Obviously you and I see the cause and effect differently in this situation, and only time will tell how this all plays out and whether your assessment or mine is the correct one. And on opportunity, Gates has clearly indicated that the whole point of the current policy toward Iran is to gain leverage so that talks can be fruitful. Again, you probably read this differently and assume that it’s all bellicosity, but we’ll all have to wait and see.
On the issue of consensus and decision making, I’m not really that far from you. You said:
I say, yes, the constituency needs to be heard but also has the responsibility to be coherent and to offer something other than criticism. You say that there were numerous alternatives offered. The ones I’m aware of were to either completely withdraw, redeploy to a safe zone, or to work at the situation politically via a partition plan. Each of those alternatives has a huge downside, and I happen to think it is not unreasonable to reject them. Not hearing is not the same as not accepting a proposal.
No argument there. Bush is, as several bloggers noted, going all in on the short stack.
CStanley, alternatives? OK, how about something you’re really going to hate?
1. An honest admission that the invasion was a mistake made worse by criminally negligent bungling and cronyism by Rumsfeld, Cheney and their gang of idealogues and policy dwarves;
2. A plan to get out of Iraq ASAP – no, not tomorrow or next month, but maybe later this year or early next year. Call me whatever you want but I am unwilling to support a policy whose sole design is to pour thousands of lives and billions of dollars into a meat grinder
(Senator Hegel’s words).
Yes, I’ve heard all the rhetoric about how we cannot simply leave now and blah, blah, blah. This was an ill-conceived misadventure that was handled improperly from day 1 and at this point Iraqi instability and sectarian fighting will only get worse. Bush’s alleged “plan” is nothing more than his effort to prolong the inevitable until he can pass the whole mess off to someone else in 2008 (“gimme six months, then gimme another six months, and another and another…”). It’s over, it’s a failure, let’s just leave.
Jason,
Our original discussion was about the role that public opinion should have on policy changes. Had the majority of Democrats run on a platform of what you’re advocating, then I’d agree with you that there was a mandate for what you’re suggesting. Instead, the mandate for Iraq was simply that the voters didn’t like the way it was going, not for any particular correction. That was by design, too: the Democratic party knew that it could not get a majority behind any one particular alternative proposal so it set it’s candidates up as a smorgasbord of “anything but stay the course”. So by your logic, which constituency is Bush supposed to listen to? Who says yours is the right one, when there are other alternative plans being floated? Who says he’s not ultimately going to be right in choosing to make corrections in his own policy rather than abandon it?
And either way, still it’s ultimately the CinC’s decision. Obviously he’s run out of political capital since public support is so low, and he can’t keep going for long, but that leads me to believe that he understands that this is now the end game.
Jason and C,
Thanks for the back and forth that you guys have been doing this post. I’m learning a lot and seeing all sides of the coin. I love this site!
I still think a lot of people voted against cybersex with pages, taking bribes from lobbyists about indian gambling, congress spending more time on the end of life dilemma about ONE woman than about serious issues, and screwing up when a major US city is hit by a hurricane. I dont think you can lay it all on the situation in Iraq.
Bush is just a really bad president. From his appointments to his energy policies, to his conduct of the war in terror, to starting a war on what turned out to be a whim. He doesn’t figure reality into his decisions, and despite what happens as a result does not adjust his thinking. The next president will be mired in the numerous consequences of Bush’s failures and I feel bad for whoever that is, GOP or Dem.
The alternatives offered to GWB from the left was:
Run screaming from IRAQ and plead for forgiveness and self flagulate for your vast errors and let us beat you with a stick and dance around with this holier then thou attitude.
I laugh at the posters claiming GWB was offered alternatives in this war.
What he was offered was a good old fashioned backstabbing by the republican party and then left holding the bag while the Democrats said hey today looks like a good day to invade IRAQ.
Hell even the CIA director at the time was a DEMOCRAT……..anyone remember George Tenet who said yep its a slam dunk….Sadam is a bad boy.
There were no alternatives offered to GWB other then his way or the highway……..NONE……Please name me one alternative that would even remotely fit in with GWB attempting to bring democracy to the MIddle east………JUST ONE.
I guess I should have explained my Republican party backstabbing comment a bit clearer. His own party frothed at the mouth and encouraged him to invade Iraq and now they are jumping ship like rats in the bilge hold as his poll numbers plummet.
CS- It may be true that Democrats didn’t have one coherent policy, but neither does Bush. Securing a city of Baghdad is going to require much more than 21,000 troops, which is why there has been so much opposition to it. Even McCain has maintained that more need to be sent to do the job right. When Bush has been wrong (and only admitted it when forced to) about everything done in this war so far, why should anyone believe him now? Because as long as we’re not withdrawing troops, there’s a chance?
Upinsmoke, I think the question that many of our commentors are asking is “Why should we bring out style of democracy to the ME at all?” Which I believe is a very vallid question, so you demanding that a plan already give a particular answer to that question is unfair.
And, even once we accept that overall strategic goal, there are always the matter of tactics. Since the begining there have be a wide variety of opinion on the troop levels needed and the deployment procecdures (for example, the creation of the “green zone” as opposed to having military personel stationed among the Iraqi populace). With that diversity of intelligent, well thought out opinion, Bush chose a particular path and stuck too it, and without the blessing of history and I can say he made a pretty crappy choice.
If all posters such as DBK want is to assign blame and responsibility for the poor decisions of the CinC, then they need wait no longer than the next presidential election to help assign that blame themselves. However, we are faced with a serious current problem that cannot be solved by assigning blame alone.
Iraq is a country at a turning point in its history, and the tough questions are “Should we stay out of another countries affairs even if it could costs us thousands of lives or more in the future?”, “Where do we think that country should go?” , “How much are we willing to sacrafice, in the future (as opposed to what has already been sacraficed and cannot be returned) to get there?” and finally “How do we get there?”
I would argue that the majority of the country would still answer “no” to the first question, and “towards a stable inclusive democracy” to the second, and “not a whole lot” to the third. Therefore, it is in those last two questions that the debate about Bush’s openness or lack of flexibility should be framed.
As CS helps point out, what you simplistically call “stay the course” really keeps the answers about the same to the first 3 questions, but does involve a change in tactics which bow to outside citicism such as the ISG recommendations.
Chuck Prez, I’m glad someone reads this stuff and thinks about it. Thanks for the plug.
CStanley said:
“So by your logic, which constituency is Bush supposed to listen to? Who says yours is the right one, when there are other alternative plans being floated? ”
Isn’t this a rhetorical question? Bush doesn’t listen to anyone (OK, maybe Uncle Dick and his sidekick Addington) and so it seems that a discussion about the role of public opinion ON THIS PARTICULAR ADMINISTRATION is rather pointless. Indeed, Cheney just bloviated again today about how they don’t need to listen to anybody! The only thing I can claim about my alternative is that it will save American lives and American treasure. That’s a whole lot more than anything Bush has uttered since the war began.
“Who says he’s not ultimately going to be right in choosing to make corrections in his own policy rather than abandon it?”
We live by probabilities not absolutes and so I will acknowledge the infinitesimally small probability that Bush, who never admits an error, never changes direction, and has never succeeded in anything in his entire life that was not completely produced and packaged by friends and relatives, might “make corrections in his own policy.� On the other hand, I would be willing to bet that, consistent with his previous 60 years, he continues along the narrow path he has chosen without any consideration for the death and destruction that his choices will entail. I’m a bit weary of the popular analyses that describe him as either disengaged and stupid, petulant and obstinate, or completely deranged. It really does not matter anymore because his ability to make new decisions has been outpaced by a “lose-lose� reality (i.e., all choices may be bad ones at this point) that he himself has created.
“And either way, still it’s ultimately the CinC’s decision. Obviously he’s run out of political capital since public support is so low, and he can’t keep going for long, but that leads me to believe that he understands that this is now the end game.”
So it’s OK for this little man to sit in his bunker and issue absurd pronouncements that everyone is supposed to take seriously? Bush will always be surrounded by a handful of kool-aid drinkers but America gave up the stuff a long time ago. It’s the end game all right and if we get through the next two years without either an impeachment hearing or a nervous breakdown in the White House, I will be a bit surprised.
Kim,
No, no one should believe in the plan simply because Bush says so; it’s a matter of actually reading the thing, looking at who has given input (Petraeus, for example, who is widely regarded as an expert on fighting insurgencies), looking at whether the plan addresses tactical mistakes that have been made, looking at whether it is a comprehensive plan that addresses political and economic issues, looking at whether or not it addresses Maliki’s responsibilities, etc, etc.
Some people might legitimately look at all of those elements and still disagree, but disagreeing without honestly examining all of those elements is to simply take the attititude “Listen to what Bush says and do the opposite.”
But Petraeus is the only voice that is coming down on Bush’s side. Maybe he feels it is his duty to make the plan work, and not to question his Commander-in-Chief. Maybe as he has been successful in the past, he really thinks he has a chance. I’m not questioning his abilities, but the overall plan itself. At best, it could only calm down conditions in Baghdad temporarily, and most military advisors think the task requires more US troops than we are sending. It relies heavily on participation from the Iraqi army, which has been underperforming, and promises from Maliki that he will confront sources of Shiite insurrection, as well as Sunni. I’m having a lot of trouble seeing Shiites attacking Shiites. Maliki had wanted to send Kurdish forces, but many of them are unwilling to put themselves in the middle of this fight, and are deserting in record numbers.
I have to disagree with your contention that those who disagree do so only because it is Bush’s plan. The consequence of being wrong so much, however, puts the burden of proof on the president’s shoulders. Has he really met that burden? If the only thing we have to go on is his word along with Cheney’s and Petraeus’, that is not good enough. Petraueus has already told the Senate that he will likely be requesting more troops. If that isn’t escalation, than I don’t know what is.
Kim,
You can’t prove future events and you can’t guarantee an outcome of any plan. So how could anyone possibly meet the burden of proof that you require?