The Summer of Our Discontent
When I was invited to write at The Moderate Voice, a blog considerably larger and more buttoned down than my own, it became obvious pretty quickly that I would have to file down some of my rough edges – especially as they pertained to the language and images I used in writing about Mr. George Bush – if I was going to fit into Joe Gandelman’s estimable stable of co-bloggers.
So terms like “The Decider” and “Schoolyard Bully” were out and “The President” was in. Altered photos of “The President” in crown and kingly regalia or playing in a kindergarten sandbox were out and photos of “The President” at photo ops were in.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Here and Now. Much of the rest of the world, as well as some of those TMV co-bloggers, have become so disgusted with “The President” that the measure of respect typically due a man of his station has pretty much evaporated. As a result, there has been a concomitant loosening of language and the use of edgier photos and especially political cartoons that I would have been gently chided for dredging up a few months ago.
I do not say this to brag on my prescience. I was only stating the obvious.
There is no greater drag on the national psyche in this summer of our discontent than a man that even many stalwart Republicans agree cannot leave Washington soon enough.
Even as snarky and unpopular as Bill Clinton could be, merchants were not marketing battery-powered chotchkies that counted down the days, hours and minutes until he left town. This summer they’re selling slews of them covered with caricatures of “The President.”
* * * * *
Earlier this year, Vanity Fair magazine ran a photo by David Hume Kennerly of the surviving members of President Ford’s inner circle. They all look appropriately senior statespersonly and include Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
The photo prompted a letter from a reader who hit a very big nail square on the head:
“Looking at the picture of the denizens of the executive branch in the Gerald Ford administration, it struck me once again how good leadership brings out the best in people. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld dominated the photo and were well-respected public servants under Ford. The fact that they are considered failures today by a majority of our citizens has to be an indictment of the leadership of our current ‘decider’.”
George Bush came to office declaring that he was the right man for complex and troubled times.
But “The President” has failed make good on any of his promises — not a single one of consequence — despite a compliant Congress and a post-9/11 mandate comparable to that given FDR after Pearl Harbor.
The result of this failure of leadership has been disastrous — from diverting resources from where the big post-9/11 battle should have been fought to an unprovoked war against a favorite pre-existing neoconservative target to the federal response to the post-Katrina disaster in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and everything in between.
“The President” has made a mockery of the separation of powers, fixated on secrecy to the point of obsession and robbed Americans of some of their most cherished civil liberties in the commission of a War on Terrorism ostensibly being fought to protect those liberties.
The judgment that awaits George Bush might not be so harsh had there been counterbalances during his tenure, say a successful domestic agenda. In fact, no domestic agenda since Herbert Hoover’s has failed so ingloriously and is so shot through with betrayal.
* * * * *
I cannot recall a presidential campaign in my lifetime where the question of leadership will be so important as the campaign now underway.
That is why I was drawn to a foreign policy speech earlier this week by Barack Obama. Journalists and bloggers obsessed on the Democratic presidential wannabe’s declaration that he would not hesitate to send troops into Pakistan and missed the underpinnings – his declaration that he would lead, not merely pay lip service to leading.
It is easy to see why “The President” was reportedly so peeved because of what Obama said:
“After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us . . .
“We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.
“Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.”
Do I think that Obama has a shot at the nomination, let alone winning the election? I don’t know. In fact I don’t even know if I would vote for him.
But he set the leadership bar appropriately high at a time when George Bush has stood in the deep end of the pool for so long that it has taken most of us years to figure out that he can’t swim.
13 Responses to “The Summer of Our Discontent”
Hahahaha…I am sure this polemical post will start the s*#t flying, but I have to say I don’t think Bush is as bad as all that.
With the creation of Homeland Security, Bush oversaw the most fundamental reordering of the federal bureaucracy since the creation of the national security state in the 40s. As in that case, it took more than one administration to iron out the kinks, but it was an event of immense historical consequence.
Contra-Obama, Bush did “launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support”. After all, recall how AQ used the Muslim diaspora’s financial network to move money covertly? That has been shut down. Despite the best efforts of the NYT to inform AQ about the US financial and electronic surveillance of AQ, the program remains sorta in existence.
Rumsfeld fundamentally transformed the Pentagon. Unlike the sainted Bill Clinton – who never had the guts to cancel a single weapons program, or close a domestic base – Rumsfeld redesigned the armed forces from a Cold War to a post-Cold War model.
By all accounts, Rumsfeld was also following the Powell Doctrine on Iraq – it was Bush himself who changed the game during the invasion itself to nation-building, and Rumsfeld had to go along with it. I think history will regard Rumsfeld as one of the most transformative Defense Sec. in the history of the Republic.
One has to give credit and blame where it is due, I feel.
Bush has screwed the pooch on Iraq, undeniably. He has also been transformed by the office into a very arrogant, close-minded leader by all accounts (in contrast to presidents like Truman, FDR, or Reagan, who transcended the office). There is no point in going on about the AG, as that is a supernaturally stupid business entirely. The only reason the AG has not been impeached, I think, is that the Democrats like having him around. I doubt the Administration could get more than a handful of votes to defend him.
Also, I would ask folks to cast their minds back to the ends of previous adminstrations. Isn’t the feeling of exhaustion and vague disgust common to all? Read, for example, media accounts at the end of Reagan (the WashPost was unpleasant, I recall dimly). Bush 1 was empty of new ideas. Clinton left everyone with a bad taste.
Anyhow, that is my two cents on Shaun’s thoughts.
I think Shaun tapped into something basic about our national discontent (warfare, actually), and that’s the sense of being a pilotless ship. Especially in these times of enormous anxieties, I think many of us desperately want a leader who can inspire all of us to be better than we are, However, Mr. Bush can only gratify one segment while alienating others.
I’ve been at my angriest, not because I disagreed with the President, but because I’ve felt so disappointed and frustrated with the manner in which he presents his presidential persona. In my imagination, I’ve edited every one of his major speeches in a way that, without altering his basic meaning, would have made his message palatable amd even interesting to me, despite my political opposition. I was often eager to extend understanding, but felt rebuffed every time he stepped up to the podium.
Looking at the candidates, I almost feel sorry for the winner. He/she will not only inherit the most horrific combination of numerous challenges in remembered history but will also face our pent up dreams and expectations of leaderhsip.
I’m not sure if any mortal can measure up adequately to avoid a fresh avalanche of disappointment.
And yet Bush opposed the idea of it. He of course took credit for DHS after he was all but forced to create it. Not only that, but the new monster that is DHS was partly to blame for the slower than slow federal response to Katrina.
Yes, Marlowe- Rumsfeld reordered the military, counting on superior technology to make up for a smaller force level and closing underused bases. But that very attempt to make the military ‘leaner and meaner’ while at the same time dismissing the Iraqi army and police force, led to disaster for both our forces and the Iraqis. He has arrogantly never apologized or admitted wrongdoing. He ran the DOD like a CEO- intimidating everyone around him until it became as dysfunctional as FEMA, DOJ, EPA, Dept of Veterans Affairs, DHS, and the NIA. Great achievement by Rummy and Bush.
kritter,
A minor correction. Rumsfeld did not run the DoD like a CEO. He ran it like a very bad CEO.
Marlowe,
In spite of those who argue about it I believe that there were very good reasons to create the DHS. But when you speak of Bush overseeing this reordering it should be remembered that he didn’t want to do it and was basically forced into it by public opinion and Congress. Thus like many things this Administration has done it should be questioned whether there was really any interest in doing it right since it “wasn’t invented there”.
Or alternatively, Jim, you could question whether it was really possible to do a bad idea ‘right’. Maybe the flaws we now see in the HS dept are because it wasn’t a very good idea to begin with (particularly putting FEMA under it’s umbrella).
Even though the prez opposed doing so, creating DHS was an excellent idea on paper.
But the execution was typical Bush administration modus operandi: Put Republican Party favorites with little or no experience in key positions and leave others unfilled (25 percent at last count), cut off FEMA at the knees (one of the few federal agencies that got high marks to begin with) and then cry poverty in providing homeland security funds to states (because of that gosh darned $400 billion-plus infrastructure improvement project in Iraq).
Good points Shaun.
It seems the entire purpose of the Bush administration is to make money/power for their friends.
One way to do that is to destroy all faith in the institutions of government, therefore making tax cuts that destroy those institutions more palatable.
Komrad Marlow – Your defense of Rummy is admirable, but misplaced.
1) Shinnseki started the modernization under Clinton. While Rummy cut new artillery, he went forward with the FCS and the F-22 fighters. I wonder how affective these hi-tech boondoggles will work against a Gen IV enemy, zip zero.
2) The Powell model included 500,000 troops in a real coalition(GW1), this group of idiots had a coalition of “the bribed”, what about out NATO ally Turkey.
3) History will included Rummy with McNammara, not as a Dulles or Marshall. He came up with the Afghanistan/warlords model, let’s see how this works out.
The Snarky Shark says hello to TMV commenters, the others…
‘It seems the entire purpose of the Bush administration is to make money/power for their friends’
Chris, I agree. That is their biggest abuse of the office of the president. What mystifies me is the extent that the conservative media has gone to to defend their actions at every turn. When the president attacked conservatives over their stand on immigration, the wall of support cracked, and you started seeing columns claiming Bush was not a real conservative.
My point is that if these agencies don’t function well because they’re staffed by incompetent flunkies, doesn’t it affect everyone, regardless of political persuasion? Trent Lott was just as upset with the federal response to Katrina as the poorest resident of the 9th ward in New Orleans. Its in everyone’s best interest to have the government work competently.
CS pulls out the standard line of defense for Bush that runs like this
Oh, please. Have you forgotten “Brownie”? The concept was and is a good one because 9/11 made it blindingly obvious that overcoming the turf wars and just plain lack of communication between agencies. What is the main problem? In case you haven’t noticed this Administration does far more things wrong than right. But then I forgot that far more often than not you refuse to acknowledge that.
[...] my rough edges especially as they pertained to the language and images I used in writing source: The Summer of Our Discontent, The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]