Putting George Bush on the Couch
Tim F. posed an interesting question the other day: What the heck is wrong with George Bush?
That question may be answered in the future when psycho-historians plumb the depths of a man whose personal flaws, combined with the myriad blunders of his hubristic neocon brain trust, resulted in a train wreck of a presidency.
But it’s worth taking a crack at the question now since we’re stuck with the dude for another 20 months.
So what the heck is wrong with George Bush?
Is it his profound lack of intellectual curiosity?
Is it his demand that people be loyal to him even if it means making bad matters worse?
Is it a messiah complex growing out of his belief that he channels the wisdom of Jesus?
Is he overcompensating because he may think that he has failed to live up to his father’s expectations?
Or what?
I am well out of my depth here and perhaps we ought to kick the question over to Dr. E., but in the meantime, whuddya think?
And please, let’s try to tackle this one with a modicum of gravitas. It’s a serious question that deserves serious comments.
48 Responses to “Putting George Bush on the Couch”
Hard question, but OK, I’ll have a go.
I think part of his problem is a profound disconnect between his decisions and their consequences, in essence, between himself and reality. I’m not snarking, I swear.
Everything that I know about his life shows me a person who has never, ever had to confront much on his own. He’s been sheltered the whole time. Every time there was danger he was taken out of it by his family (see Vietnam), every time he failed Papa Bush made it all go away (see his failed bussiness ventures). Like a child that won’t learn from his mistakes if you instantly replace the toy he broke with a new one, he has a very hard time with the concept that things he does can go bad, and then NOT go back. As president, painstaking efforts are put into making sure that everything and everyone around him sends the message that “you’re doing a heck of a job, Georgie!”. He then is confused and angry when the rest of the world doesn’t think it’s all “OK”, he’s not very used to people taking a stand against him. He clearly doesn’t know what the hell to do with critisism on the rare ocasions he’s confronted with it, he either petulantly denies anything is wrong or recites catchphrases given to him.
Basically, he’s spoiled. He’s certainly not the only adult that never grew out of his spoiled self, but most of those folks don’t make it to POTUS. As we can see from his example, that’s a very very good thing.
You did pretty good, Lynx.
I would add that he seems to see every event as being all about him.
Despite his pious rhetoric, I sense that the outcome in Iraq is primarily important to him simply because he wants to be proven right. Iraqis and Americans just get in his way.
My wife asks these sorts of q’s about mean or deceitful co-workers, or psychos who harass me or her by sending hate emails or viruses. Her last query in this vein was on the VT shooter.
I respond by saying, it does not matter. Why did Hitler go bonkers. Why did JW Gacy like dressing as a clown and killing boys? Why do priests or female teachers try to seduce yuong boys.
There may be some cases where abuse by another, or an incident of racism can be posited, but in the end it comes down to their being plain old FUCKED UP.
It’s like asking why? It’s the only question that humanity will never get an answer to- why a cosmos or why not? You can wrack your brain looking for answers- all of the above and more, but there is simply something seriously wrong with the man. Why is Dick Cheney the Western symbol of greed and evil? Why is Rumsfeld the symbol of incompetence- or perhaps Condo Rice? Why do all of them sport shit-eating grins when they speak?
They are fucked up. The reasons matter far less than the results. In a material cosmos this is always true. It may not satisfy, but it is so.
Cosmoetica said: “Why do all of them sport shit-eating grins when they speak?”
I would disagree. There was an interesting interview with Martin Amis – the British novelist – last week, where he commented on some of the issues that Shaun has raised.
However, Amis’ analysis of Bush is particularly interesting…even for those of you who see him in a purely partisan lens:
“I’m very interested in how his whole persona has changed. Do you remember around 2002 and 2003, his body language was that of someone looking for a fight? Even his walk was very drunk with power. . . . Now his upper lip has stopped working. He can’t smile. I’m glad to see it. Think of the difference between Lincoln at the start of the Civil War and Lincoln at the end: this beautiful man, emaciated by war, by the distress and pain of it. And Bush is showing it, in his sinews and his glands. It’s taking a very heavy toll on him. And so it should.”
“In one veteran’s hospital alone . . . Bush has made 35 visits to severely injured troops, and that’s a lot. If I were president I’d try to keep it down to three, or perhaps two, or maybe one. Or maybe not visit at all. I mean, it’s so impossibly painful. Some people have said to me that they think . . . it’s very emotional and that he’s addicted to that.”
I think Cosmo has it about right.
an interesting article that studies addiction and the perceived imperative to find out the why.
I read that early on in his presidency, Bush read books about great leaders to see who he wanted to pattern himself after. He decided on Reagan-( “Axis of Evil” actually came out of Reagan’s use of “Evil Empire”) because he admired Reagan’s moral clarity and ability to project American power in the world. The problem is that Bush lacks Reagan’s strength of character and innate flexibility in pursuing key goals. Reagan was able to evolve by absorbing new information, Bush seems stuck on rigid ideological positions that he never reevaluates or tailors when they aren’t working. Reagan was self-made, Bush is the product of wealth and privilege, and has been shielded from the harsh consequences of his actions his entire life by his family and their connections.
He has continued that attempt to shield himself in the WH , by surrounding himself with loyalists, and using excessive secrecy. While he lacks the ability to govern, he has perfected the art of deflecting blame onto his opponents. He often uses Rove and Cheney in that role.
Since he doesn’t possess or seem to want to possess the ability to compromise, he uses signing statements, attacks on dissent , political spin and a broad interpretation of presidential power (the unitary executive) to avoid it. He keeps incompetents too long, feeling perhaps that he has every right to keep those of his chosing around him. Unfortunately for the nation, Bush can’t seem to distinguish between politics and policy, or recognize the corrosive effect that that is having on our bureaucracy.
Shaun: I gotta say, I find the halo around Bush’s head in the picture sorta disturbing. Not sure why, but it is disturbing.
Kritter: But you are talking mostly about the symptoms as opposed to the causes. What are the underlying elements that shape his political actions?
In the quote I cited from Martin Amis, he raised the interesting idea about addictions.
Leading their nation into wars often destroys presidents. Look at pictures of Roosevelt through his presidency. He coped with the Depression well enough, but World War II killed him. Lincoln’s portraits are quite famous…particularly the sitting taken near the conclusion of the war. Johnson was destroyed by Vietnam, and lived his last years with shoulder-length hair half-insane on his ranch.
I agree that understanding Bush’s character is useful. But I am more fascinated with understanding how a Republic can thrive with so many voters and donors who continue to support such a pervasively disappointing performance.
Some people are always lucky that whatever they do in life they are always taken to the couch…While some others are simply considered fit to be flushed down the loo. It is another matter that the consequences of their actions could be almost the same.
If Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden were lucky enough to have been taken to a couch, the above answer would apply to them too. Wouldn’t it?
Ditto for Saddam and Osama!
I wonder whether I have come up to your expectations Shaun!!!
Swaraaj Chauhan your point being…..? I see no connection of any use. Osama, BTW led a sheltered and very secular young life, and then voluntarily decided to become a religious fundamentalist and a fighter in very dire conditions. His life and Bush’s were those of rich boys, and then diverged radically in adulthood.
Now, I certainly hope you aren’t implying that Osama and Bush are basically very similar. I’m ANYTHING but a fan of Bush, but that goes into moonbat country and beyond. Bush is separated from reality in many ways, Osama is a bloody terrorist with a vision of the world I cannot begin to fathom, there IS a difference.
I can only imagine that your point must be that if look into the past of almost anyone you can see the beginings of what they are to become as adults, and that people submitted to the same backround don’t always come out the same. Neither of these two things are breakthroughs, really. It’s still useful to “put someone on the couch”, understanding a person’s motivations is essential to dealing with that person, especially with very difficult people.
Oh and as for Saddam and Osama not having the privilege of being psychoanalyzed…yeah….I’d check up on that if I were you. I’m pretty certain that Osama has been hyper-analyzed by profesionals and press the world over.
See, this is gets me going so often here, and makes me sound like I love GB and am a complete Right-wing nut.
Object all you want to his policies, discuss what you like or don’t like about his administration, but why does this have to become ‘George Bush obviously is mentally ill and/or deficient in some manner”?
It is what I continually bitch about – the need to demonize not only him, but all that we disagree with. Everyone on this board (practically) has complained about the nastiness of politics these days, but look in the mirror, guys) and gals).
Swaraaj:
It’s still early in the day here in the USofA, but the dialogue has been appropriately serious.
If I may throw another possible ingredient into the mix, it is my view that Bush’s major accomplishment in life has been to overcome an addiction of alcohol and perhaps cocaine, as well, and while he had support from the Missus and others, he basically had to do this on his own. He is to be congratulated for that, but I have to wonder if his previous addiction(s) and rehabilitation play roles in his present-day mindset?
Marlowe- Bush’s hair has grayed- that’s the only effect I see, but regardless if his upper lip ain’t working. The result is he’s still throwing bodies to the fire.
Kim: Reagan had ‘moral clarity and ability to project American power in the world. The problem is that Bush lacks Reagan’s strength of character and innate flexibility in pursuing key goals. Reagan was able to evolve by absorbing new information.’ Hello? What 1980s did you live thru? The one where he ignored AIDS, fired PATCO- ensuring the worst American aviation decade for accidents in half a century, where he decimated a generation of inner city youth w cutbacks on great social programs, or when he secretly violated Am. Law in Iran-Contra, and deregulated the economy- resulting in S&L and the Wal-Martization of the country?
If Reagan was in command, he was evil. If he was a puppet, as most- even insiders, contend, then he was a fool. Either way, in a material cosmos, the results are what is left to sort thru, and Reagan’s tenure was a DISASTER!
Austin: I agree. I think Bush is a nice man; but that does not mean he does not have a problem. I know many nice drunks and addicts, as well as people with other bizarre compulsions. Starting a war for no real purpose qualifies as a mental deficiency- at the very most.
Great link, Daniel.
Addicts never change- they switch addictions. My bro-in-law went from a boozer to bodybuilder to workaholic. At least the last one is productive.
Used to be we thought of leaders who flubbed things as men with fatal flaws. Now we psychoanalyze them. Seems to me this may say more about society than it does about the flawed leaders.
cosmoetica- I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get across. I was mostly talking about how Bush admired Reagan in foreign policy- and how Reagan was able to get part of what he wanted to get done working with Tip O’ Neill.
I’m not saying that I agreed with Reagan’s policies-I was a not a supporter- what I’m saying is that he was successful within the realm of what the Republican party ideology is supposed to stand for, and that Bush admired him for it
. The GOP of the 80′s bought into the homophobia that surrounded early cases of AIDS- so Reagan would have been criticized by the base for responding to it. That he didn’t indicates that his own moral code allowed him to view it as the “gay disease”. Reagan projected moral clarity to his supporters- that’s not the same thing as claiming that his stand on AIDS or other issues was a moral one. Bush has tried to be a weak imitation of Reagan in other ways, but he has devoted more funding to AIDS now that it is a worldwide epidemic.
“Kritter: But you are talking mostly about the symptoms as opposed to the causes. What are the underlying elements that shape his political actions?”
I think, like others on the board have said, that overcoming addiction has given him a black/white view of politics and diplomacy- this is also reinforced by his evangelical faith. He rarely questions decisions because his faith guides him. He also seems to be able to convince himself of things that aren’t really true. I don’t think he sees what he says as lies-he has tunnel vision.
What is it with these ‘We’ve a crush on George Bush’ Brits? Hitchens, Amis, Derbyshire and Sullivan (though not so much now to be fair). they’re like members in the same schoolboy spy club with Bush as the cool prefect they all look up to. Weird. Amis is particularly odd given his obsession with Stalin and the Gulags. All that research and he still hasn’t twigged the similarities- isolation cells, sleep deprivation, water boarding and show trials. Unlike a majority of their fellow countrymen, they bought the neo-con bs and hysteria over Saddam, and like their adopted pundit brothers in America, are petrified of admitting they got it all badly wrong.
CS- starting a war is more than a flub- that’s a verbal gaffe.
Monstrous chasm between the 2.
Cosmo-
You’re such a firefall, I wish you’d jump over to the Darfur story and light a fire under that.
I didn’t mean to use the word flub to make light of it; perhaps a bad word choice. I was referring to any kind of failure of a leader- you can read the history books or Shakespeare tragedies to see that history is full of those who’ve brought down nations and/or created havoc because of their fatal flaws. My point was just that in the past, people didn’t view these leaders as mentally ill. It has always been understood, I think, that when someone holds great power, his or her personal flaws are magnified because of the consequences of the decisions made. The higher they are, the harder they fall, that sort of thing.
“but why does this have to become ‘George Bush obviously is mentally ill and/or deficient in some mannerâ€?”
Austin, no one is saying he’s crazy. But we do think he is sinfully incompetent. The kind of incompetence that keeps driving with the parking brake on even after he knows about it. He lies, covers for his boys, obviously thinks the world is black and white and simple, the kind of way a child would look at it. Except he has the largest military in the world at his disposal and thinks that’s the answer to all the problems.
He doesn’t understand American principles and thinks toture and imprisonment without trial is freedom as long as the Stars and Stripes are waving in the background. He defends the unthinkable on emotional grounds all the time, and never uses his damn head because its not him thats going to pay the real costs.
Forget about Georgie, what about the 28% who voted for him and continue to support ANYTHING he does. The US became enablers for his mistakes, the voters are just as complicit in his mistakes.
AustinRoth:
You have it exactly wrong, at least as far as I am concerned.
I did not post this piece to demonize Bush, let alone claim that he is crazy. But there have to be underlying reasons for the immense mess he has made of virtually everything he has touched, as well as how he squandered his extraordinary post-9/11 mandate. I also noted that his battle against alcohol addiction and perhaps drug addiction, as well, is praiseworthy.
A number of commenters took my challenge and have explored what they believe may be underlying reasons. It has been a worthy discussion and not a hatchet job.
Doma- gotta work 16 of the next 24 hours, so no time now.
One must be able to sep. man and actions. One can be a good father and a murderer, or a good tax paying citizen and an adulterer. Bush does strike me as a decent guy, someone to chat w at a barbecue, but I’d never let him run a lemonade stand, much less the lone superpower in the world. Period.
Sam -
Yes, people did. In the initial post linked to by Shaun:
The use of the word ‘pathology’ in and of itself implies illness.
Shaun’s quote:
followed by a litany of issues including ‘Messiah complex’ and ‘lack of intellectual curiosity’ implies the ‘mentally deficient’ aspect.
And cosmetica’s post calling Cheney and Bush ‘just plain f*cked up’, and referencing Hitler, John Wayne Gracy, pedophiliac priests and teachers was just beyond the pale.
Cosmo-
Believe me, I understand the need to work and sleep. But I hope you will keep Darfur on your back burner.
The disease is spreading!
AustinRoth:
So what do you think is wrong with Bush? Or would your speaking to that be beyond the pale?
AR- The lack of intellectual curiosity has been noted by just about everyone coming out of his administration- It wasn’t originated here by liberals but by Paul O’ Neill his first Sec Treas, a staunch conservative. Is it not permissable to use what others who know him have documented to figure out why so much has gone wrong?
Demonizing him would be making things up just to make him look even worse. BTW, he himself has demonized politcal opponents and those who disagreed with his policies. His administration or election campaigns have tried to destroy the reputations of people like Richard Clarke, Eric Shinseki and even John McCain. He’s kept Karl Rove at his right hand, as an attack dog.
This is what scares me. George W. Bush will be gone in 21 months, but the 10-20% of the electorate who support him no matter what he does will continue to vote in election after election. These are the Republicans who pride themselves on being “fiscal conservatives” and yet continue to support a president who has presiding over the highest rate of spending since the Lyndon Johnson adminsitration. These are the Republicans who lambasted Clinton for nation-building and yet defend Bush, who has engaged in biggest nation-building exercise since WWII.
Bush isn’t the problem. It’s the partisan mindset of certain Americans–Americans who hold one set of principles when their party is out of power and a completely different set of principles when their party is in power. This really applies to both parties, as I don’t remember the Democrats being as critical of Clinton for his nation-building policies as they are of Bush. But the ease with which Republicans accuse their opponents of being flip-floppers–despite Bush’s 180 degree shifts on nation-building and deficit spending–never ceases to amaze me.
First of all, you think cos’s comments fell under the ‘worthy discussion and not a hatchet job’ description? If so, well, then we disagree on more than just political philosophy.
Otherwise, why did you try and throw the ‘beyond the pale’ comment back at me, unless you feel those were constructive and rational talking points?
What do I think is wrong with him? Probably nothing, at least in the sense that it was being presented in Tim’s post you linked to, or in your lead-in (at least by inference).
Just because he is failing as a President, and the occupation of Iraq has been an utter failure, doesn’t mean there is anything ‘wrong’ with him.
Incompetency does not have to equate mental illness or deficiencies, or lack of intellectual capabilities, or evil intent. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and as CS said, being in a position of great power multiplies the effects of both you strengths and weaknesses, but it doesn’t make then actually stronger within the person. It just makes them an easy target.
Carter is a great example, in my mind. No one doubts his intelligence, nor, at least when he was President, did anyone doubt his humanitarianism. But he bungles the US economy, much of the current Mid-East situations trace significant roots back to policy decisions in his administration, and he was, as a whole, an ineffective President as well.
But I never heard ‘what is wrong with Carter? Does he have deep-seated mental issues that prevent him from succeeding?’. I did hear criticism of his micro-management style, his unwillingness to let his subordinates make their own decisions, etc. But not that those were due to anything other his style.
So that is why I said it seemed like ‘demonizing’ again to me.
It is not enough that Bush is not a competent President – it has to be related to physiological issues, like his past drinking, or his religious devotion, or some kind of Oedipus complex, or a lack of intelligence (never mind that he is a Harvard MBA, and got better undergraduate grades than both Kerry and Gore, his supposed intellectual superiors).
If I had to come up with something in a nutshell, I think he Peter-principled himself; surrounded himself with too many people with the same mindset rather than a more diverse set of views; and learned some wrong lessons from the end of his father’s Presidency, and so applied the wrong corrective actions to the Washington scene.
Carter has been demonized as traitorous for his trips to see Cuba and as antisemitic for his recent book. Maybe noone said he was mentally unhinged, but he still has come under attack by the right.
oops- should have said trips to see Castro, lol
AustinRoth:
“If I had to come up with something in a nutshell, I think he Peter-principled himself; surrounded himself with too many people with the same mindset rather than a more diverse set of views; and learned some wrong lessons from the end of his father’s Presidency, and so applied the wrong corrective actions to the Washington scene.”
I could not agree more.
Perhaps. But very recently, Andrew Card (Bush’s former chief of staff) was on the Daily Show, and he said just the opposite. He argued that Bush actually surrounds himself with people holding a very diverse set of opinions and that he makes his decisions based upon this.
So the question is, does Bush surround himself with a diverse set of opinions and simply ignore those who have the better ideas? Or was Andrew Card inaccurate in his assertion, and the truth is closely to what many of us suspect–that Bush indeed surrounds himself with advisors with a very narrow set of views that reflect his own?
Austin, at the risk of being too cute by half, I’ll counter your contrarianism with some of my own:
Maybe the people who rag on Bush for partisan reasons say what they say because of BDS, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t something wrong with the man and his situation beyond some guy getting in over his head.
Similarly, the fact that you are mostly non-partisan (I think you’ve said as much, and I’m taking you at your word.) doesn’t mean that you aren’t led astray by partisanship.
In the wake of 9/11, Bush had an opportunity no American POTUS is likely to for several decades to forge an international and a domestic alignment (two separate but related things) that would have had the overwhelming majority of sensible people on one side and a small albeit alarming concentration of fanatics on the other. He appears to have missed this opportunity thoroughly and profoundly. Why?
I would argue that if you want to locate the point in recent history where partisanship spiraled out of control, that was it. And yet you seem fixated on the lefties on this board who are spoiling the moderate and non-partisan atmosphere with their uber-partisanship.
I guess I’m out of contrarian mode now, but I would bet you that many who appear harshly partisan to you now were at one time relatively moderate even by your standards. But the Katrina bungling and the Terry Schiavo posturing and the Alberto Gonazlez business and the relentless sloganeering and of course the entire sorry Iraq saga are a sufficent cause to the partisan effect you see even for those who weren’t partisan to begin with.
As for Bush, well, anyone can make mistakes, maybe even a lot of them, but almost any halfway sensible person starts seeing that things have gone wrong and that a fair reckoning must be made to start turning it around. George W Bush won’t or can’t do this.
You have to wonder why.
Sorry I missed this thread; lots of good insights.
I will add only these observations:
“Pathos” is the root of pathology. Pathos translating to “suffering.” In this context, what we see at times in Bush can ideed be interpreted as pathos. Let’s face it, the man is suffering (viz. Martin Amis).
Politicians are largely clever, but rarely intelligent. Intelligence tends to include, cleverness to exclude. Cleverness also tends to lead, at some point, to disillusionment and ruin. Clinton, a very clever politician is not so unlike Bush in this way. Both are clever and have gathered their enemies for their cleverness. This unfolding for Bush is both archetypal and meaningful, but, really, only for him, if he chooses do examine it.
It is good and right that Bush suffers. Beyond what we deal with and see in the world, he is playing out his own private drama and it may ruin him and it may enlighten him.
Everything else is artifice.
Well, jjc, I’d say to some extent you are actually making the same point that I made and Austin seconded: that GWB has been tested in an extraordinary way and then was found to be lacking (or as I’d put it, his fatal flaws were magnified by the magnitude of the situation).
You see 9/11 as a turning point in partisanship, but I’d say that nothing changed that much except that we all became more aware of our partisan differences. For a brief period we all thought we’d come together and we certainly wanted to (and want to now too, for the most part), but when the rubber met the road everyone realized that a) half the country sees the solution to our national security in one way and half of it sees it another way and b) the leaders in each party can and will exploit those different viewpoints as much as they possibly can because it benefits them personally to do so (and in many cases I don’t think they do it consciously- though in some cases I think they do).
To you, the disastrous results of the Iraq War repudiate Bush’s entire strategy but to a lot of us, the situation repudiates his implementation of the strategy. To you, it seems obvious that he took a wrong turn right from the start and that is why you see it as though he wasted this incredible opportunity. To many of us, that opportunity for the world community to unite never really existed. I’m not interested in rehashing our differences on that point, but I think you can see how you and I would come to different conclusions about Bush based on our different readings of the events and what Bush’s options really were. Your argument reminds me a lot of a remark that my husband and I make to one another when we disagree, in order to break tension with levity: “Why can’t you be reasonable and see it my way?”
‘You see 9/11 as a turning point in partisanship, but I’d say that nothing changed that much except that we all became more aware of our partisan differences. For a brief period we all thought we’d come together and we certainly wanted to (and want to now too, for the most part), but when the rubber met the road everyone realized that a) half the country sees the solution to our national security in one way and half of it sees it another way and b) the leaders in each party can and will exploit those different viewpoints as much as they possibly can because it benefits them personally to do so (and in many cases I don’t think they do it consciously- though in some cases I think they do).’
CS-Yes 9/11 was exploited, but most of all by Bush, the man with the opportunity to bring Americans together and get the rest of the world behind us. I do believe its possible for people to put their differences aside to reach for a more important goal, but they have to believe in their leader and his cause. Bush has always cared more about a National Unity government in Iraq, than a national unity government here at home. Others have done so in time of war- Roosevelt and Truman were successful. So I doubt your premise. Bush has appealed to his hard right base since day one.
IMO, Many of the Democrats who voted with him for Iraq did so out of misguided loyalty and patriotism, and yes fear that Karl Rove would ferret them out as cowards. But once the GOP obtained the majority in both houses, Bush realized that reaching out to them was no longer necessary . Then it became about governing for the base- and nothing but the base. And those around him see the ‘winner take all’ mentality as a valid one- recently John Bolton openly defended this type of governance.
CS, I think GWB was doing fine in the immediate aftermath of 9/11–partially because nearly everyone wanted him to succeed. Everyone was vitally interested in the issue of national security. I don’t think we were polarized at that point, as you seem to, as to our views on national security. I think a lot of the discussion of what that issue means was yet to be had, and had he initiated that discussion, he would have started in a very strong position.
If you want to stipulate that the opportunity fo the world community to unite never existed, I don’t expect I can talk you out of that, any more than I can talk you out of holding that the partisan divisions were there all along.
But remember, everyone pretty much agreed that the Taliban had to be taken out and that bin Laden should be captured. And everyone, even if for a short time, was flying the flag. For a while there, it was everyone’s security, and everyone’s nation.
That, to me, is the real lesson of 9/11. I didn’t, and don’t, understand how you could live in that moment and not get that lesson. But we all know that when GWB refers, as he so often does, to the lessons of 9/11, that he has something else in mind.
CS- So you really thought that the Shia, Kurds and Sunnis could come together to form a democracy after centuries of bitter hatred, but you doubted whether Republicans and Democrats could put aside their partisanship???
jjc,
My point is, everyone had the country’s interest at heart after 9/11, but where I think the partisanship still existed then is in the manner in which we each thought that our govt should pursue our interests. You mention that we were all pretty united on the Afghanistan war and going after bin Laden, but beyond that the Dem side saw other efforts to prevent further attacks in a law enforcement manner while the GOP side tended to see it as a global war to end state sponsored terrorism (and I know you can find criticism in the way that’s been carried out, but still, it’s the concept that I’m speaking of and not the implementation).
Basically my point is that we are united in our goals but very, very divided in our ideas of how to acheive the goals- and the period after 9/11 (really starting in late 2002- 2003) unmasked that. If you look back (I read a good piece about this but can’t remember where or who the author was) to the Cold War period, our major strategy of containment of USSR and alignment of countries in our sphere of influence was accepted by BOTH parties. There were differences on the edges but the central premise wasn’t argued. Now in the power vaccuum after the demise of the USSR, there are major differences of opinion about the role that the US should take and how we can prevent enmity. I think that the less hawkish believe that we can earn trust of all other nations; that’s a great goal and I agree with it to some degree, but personally I believe that there’s going to be a period of time while we are earning trust (and possibly, forever) that there will be enemies who will hold everything against us. Even our attempts to aid other countries are often seen as unwanted meddling, so we have to have the resolve to fight against those who choose to fight against us. Of course, you might agree with that but we might still differ on how to determine who those people are, or you might disagree with my whole premise.
Kim: In hindsight I’d say I was wrong to think that at this point in history the Shia, Kurds and Sunnis could work out a power sharing govt, but your comment actually makes my point for me: here in our country, we do have serious differences of political philosophy but our govt structure allows us to function even with those differences. So what I’m saying is that the unity that we all felt after 9/11 was real but it felt deeper than it really was because it preceded the actual discussion of policy which brought out our differences. Just because I think that the partisanship is inevitable doesn’t mean that I fear that we’ll have one party’s members trying to gain dominance through violence.
And jjc, I do agree that Bush could have done a MUCH better job on the communication aspect, and in fact I think that is the crux of our bitter partisanship now. The fact that we all have serious differences of opinion is one thing, but the fact that the discussions never really took place led to a lot of division. I do put most of the blame for that on Bush but it also didn’t help that the Dems didn’t effectively force a conversation either. Instead, they first went along with Iraq (I think because they were more afraid of the consequences if they were wrong than they were of the risk of failure of the policy- and I find that incredibly disdainful because basically they were betting on being able to blame Bush if things didn’t go well). So yeah, I do see fault on both sides (not to mention that even during the debate over Homeland Security in 2002, people like Byrd were comparing Bush to al Qaeda so it’s not like the Dems were innocent of throwing rhetorical bombs either.)
But CS,in our country we have long-shared beliefs that transcend the partisan differences. Our democratic ideals are based on actual philosophy about limited power and the rights of man, majority rule with upholding of minority rights, separation of church and state, etc. Our cultural mores are much more conducive to maintaining our system of laws.
For the most part, we are willing to give up some power to achieve peaceful coexistance. Also, we are divided more evenly than the Shiites , Kurds and Sunnis are – so that its more unlikely that one party will assert absolute power over the other. We don’t have the problem of interference from regional powers in our security- unless you count illegal immigration. The two situations are so dissimilar.
If the cause for war was just and real , I believe we would still be unified. We were unified in the first Gulf War under Bush’s father, and were unified going into Afghanistan, and remain so. The cause was fraudulent and the selling of it was dishonest, major mistakes were made early on which pretty much ensured our defeat. That is why we are split apart on this war.
Kim,
On the first part, I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me when I agreed with you LOL. What I was saying is that for the reasons you’ve now listed, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds of Iraq can’t come together in spite of their differences. In our country, we can (sort of). But the similarity is that these differences DO exist. It’s just that in the US we have a shared history, shared ideals, and political structures that allow us to function peacefully (if acrimoniously) with our differences. The point I was making about the harmony after 9/11 is that the only reason it seemed so harmonious is because we weren’t talking about the “now what” part very much so you didn’t hear or notice the dissonance.
And as far as your second point, that if the cause for war was just and real that we’d be united: well, that’s just another way of saying that part of the country didn’t agree with the decision to go to war. It’s a description of the situation rather than an explanation. You assume that your side is correct in it’s opinion that this war was not just. Do you really feel that the only reason that would have made the invasion just would have been the existence of WMD? Was not Saddam a problem either way? Was he not ignoring every UN resolution? Would it have not been justified for him to have been taken out in ’91 (I’m not saying it would have been a smart thing to do because we’d have had the same consequences in the aftermath as we have today- but I’m strictly speaking of whether or not such a move would have been JUST.) Were the sanctions that were keeping Saddam in check really maintainable, given the corruption of the Oil for Food program? I think that most people who feel that they were somehow tricked into supporting the war at the outset are ignoring those questions. The administration made the legalistic case for going to war based on WMD because that’s the only way to justify it under international law. To me it was always obvious that this was only a legal argument and that Saddam was a problem with or without WMD- because regardless of whether or not he had them in ’03, he’d have always been seeking them. And containment of his ambitions wasn’t possible because our ‘allies’ weren’t any more likely to do that than they were to support the invasion- France, Germany, and China were all financially vested in their ties with Saddam.
Basically my point is that we are united in our goals but very, very divided in our ideas of how to acheive the goals
At the risk of over-simplifying, I disagree with this. I think a majority of Americans would agree with a Dean Acheson approach to foreign policy as it relates to national security concerns if it were explained to them. Not that the disagreement wouldn’t be there, but that it would be much more manageable than it seems to be today.
Bush, Cheney et al were apparently averse to an Acheson-style realism, and that aversion strikes me as a major component in their embrace of the Iraq project. Perhaps they could have sold the American public on their vision, but instead they misrepresented the casus belli and communicated no sense at all of what the risks were of invading Iraq, so much so that it seems they were unaware themselves of the risks or perhaps, even worse, indifferent to them.
I understand (?) that you believe the state of play in Iraq in ’03 justified the invasion, but I’m pretty sure there isn’t that much support for your view in the general American public. While you’ve said Bush could have done a MUCH better job of communicating his views, I still think that understates the error. To sell his view of national security required extensive, and ultimately damaging, politicizing of the issue, including the trumpeting of WMD, the whispering of connection between Saddam and 9/11, and a sophisticated campaign to marginalize potential opponents of the war.
I think the partisanship you’re saying was always there is almost entirely emotional, the residue of past skirmishes. 9/11, though, changed the emotional atmosphere. It’s all come back, of course, with interest, but I just don’t think people’s ideas are all that different about national security issues, but the political posturing obscures what I think is probably a fairly broad consensus.
AustinRoth- I also say Bush seems a decent guy- but that does not mean he cannot be fucked up in other ways- esp. when starting an uneeded war. It’s called seeing grays. Grow up.
And incompetence defines someone like Carter or Reagan, but Bush is severely detached from reality. That is called psychosis.
JJC- only those who still defend Bush’s Presidency suffer from BDS. But you are smacj-on with Acheson and realpolitik.
cosmoetica, I think lefties sometimes waste energy arguing about BDS. I see it as one of those invented issues that posits the relevancy of alleged motives behind an opponent’s arguments. It’s nothing more than a step up from name-calling, really, and a small one at that.
I would never argue that I’m not a moonbat, so why make an issue about whether I have BDS?
I agree with your comment comparing Bush to Carter and Reagan. I’m reading What it Takes about the candidates in ’88, and recommend it–looks at Iran Contra from the viewpoints of (so far as I’ve read) GWHB and Dole.
jjc- I did not claim you had BDs, only those who blindly follow him; a far more apt use of the term than those who hate anyone who holds the Presidency: Clinton, Nixon, LBJ