A Most Unusual Look at the Bush “Self-Correcting” Presidency
Sep 21st, 2009 | 23 responses
This morning’s Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Ross Douthat will certainly raise a lot of eyebrows, produce a lot of frowns, bring out a lot of smiles and everything in between—and beyond.
For the article is a little bit about the good and a lot about the bad and the ugly of a person whom Americans either love, or love to hate.
You guessed it; it is about George W. Bush.
What makes the article different and interesting, in my opinion, is how the author, while “qualifyingly” giving credit for the good, finds hope, even redemption, in the bad and the ugly.
The article starts with:
Last week, the Census Bureau released a statistical report on the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency. The numbers were brutal. On every indicator, Americans lost ground during the Bush era. The median income slumped. The poverty rate increased. The percentage of Americans without health insurance rose.
It concludes with:
This is not a blueprint that future presidents will want to follow. But the next time an Oval Office occupant sees his popularity dissolve and his ambitions turn to dust, he can take comfort from Bush’s example. It suggests that it’s possible to become a good president even — or especially — when you can no longer hope to be a great one.
In between, Douthat discusses Matt Latimer’s new memoir, “the umpteenth insider look at Bush administration’s dysfunction,” a book that “offers grist for Bush-whackers of both parties,” but then focuses on how Bush, if “destined to go down as a failed president, come what may…looks increasingly like an unusual sort of failure.”
Douthat writes about Bush’s “unusual sort of failure” in a very unusual sort of way. A way that will certainly draw, as I implied at the beginning, a lot of praise and a lot of criticism, from the Bush haters and the Bush lovers, respectively, or vice-versa, or both, who knows—it’s that kind of unusual article.
What do you think?
23 Responses to “A Most Unusual Look at the Bush “Self-Correcting” Presidency”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV. TMV said: A Most Unusual Look at the Bush “Self-Correcting” Presidency: This morning’s Op-Ed piece in the New York Times .. http://bit.ly/9oM2u [...]
Let me see if I have the “logic” of this op-ed piece straight. One way to be a good, not great, president is to bring the country to the brink of ruin over seven plus years of disastrous policies and policy execution, and then attempt to reverse or salvage those disastrous policies in the final few months of your adminstration.
Interesting perspective.
That photograph of W. depicts the story of malignant narcissism better than any words I could come up with. People with NPD can commit atrocities one moment and the very next smile for the camera like above and show not a trace of conscience. Indeed they are all about glowing for viewing. Their apathic disconnect sends shivers down the spine.
He was a a monster, a psychological deviant undiagnosed and placed exactly where he was by Dick Cheney. Bush was the perfect puppet, the perfect self-glorfying distraction while the real business was conducted from Position #2..
To give credit to Bush, at least he “stopped listening to [Cheney]” (in Cheney's own words). It could have been a lot worse if we did what Cheney wanted.
I was always curious about that picture. I wonder why they used it as the official White House photo. It's not a flattering portrait at all. That vacant stare, that goofy grin. You can almiost hear the hollow vaccuum between his two ears.
Maybe it was done on purpose to appeal to the moron demographic, which unfortunately is large enough to constitute the support base for a major political party.
I agree. I think Cheney is bitter and angry that the US never attacked Iran.
I do think he has a real disconnect and that picture shows it. He was surrounded by yes men -who had a ready supply of false flattery.
Think of the pictures of LBJ during Viet Nam. He couldn't sleep because he knew he was sending young men to their deaths. It destroyed him. Bush, from his own accounts,never lost a minute of sleep-even after we knew that we invaded the wrong country.
Tidbuts says:
“Let me see if I have the “logic” of this op-ed piece straight. One way to be a good, not great, president is to bring the country to the brink of ruin over seven plus years of disastrous policies and policy execution, and then attempt to reverse or salvage those disastrous policies in the final few months of your adminstration”
Tidbits, that's one of the reasons I found this piece so “unusual.”
Thanks for commenting
Mikkel -
No argument from me that Cheney ran the show for the first 4-6 years at least on foreign policy, war policy and domestic security. I'm not as convinced that Cheney was up to his elbows in the tax, budget and deregulation issues (energy policy excepted).
That Bush was elected president & didn't have the balls to be president until the disaster(s) of Cheney's policies were coming home to roost is condemnation itself of Bush's presidency.
krit11:
“Bush, from his own accounts,never lost a minute of sleep-even after we knew that we invaded the wrong country.”
I clearly remember how shocked and disgusted I was when I heard Bush say something to that effect. To make matters worse, his supporters rationalized his remarks.
GWB was a second-rate knock-off of his daddy, who himself was a wobbly imitation of Ronald Reagan with Ivy credentials. Aside from R.R. and BillyJeff with welfare reform & a couple of other lucid moments, the US presidency has been on auto-pilot much of the last half-century. Ike was the last good POTUS before RR, and GWB took his Harvard BusSchool delegation of authority theory far too seriously. But GWB self-corrected, unlike Jimmy C. whose CRA spawned the ridiculous FanFred excesses under BJ which led to a meltdown that GWB [feebly] tried to correct. And Iran is still at James Earl's door, plus the Panama Canal [now under PRC supervision], yadda, yadda. And the country still benefits from his comments on how conservatives who are winning arguments with liberals are “racist.” Thanks for the memories, Jimmy.
The picture is just eerie. I've known about five people with clinical NPD and his face in that picture is so identical to how they photograph it's uncanny. There is, truly, a certain vacuuous look to the eyes behind a genuinely glowing facial expression. The glow is basking in the limelight. The vacuum is the spiritual vacuum that exists inside every person with NPD.
They process everything through just one filter: “how will I get the most admiration/attention right now”. Everything else, including past misdeeds, is vaulted away from their wakeful selves. They are easy to manipulate if one has that bent of character. The two men, Bush and Cheney were the perfect fit in that Cheney's ruthlessness pandered to Bush's narcissism just enough to keep him happy. The only thing that fell apart between Bush and Cheney towards the end was that Bush's numbers began a rapid exponenetial decline. It has nothing to do with principles or morality on Bush's behalf at all. It has everything to do with no longer feeling the glow of the limelight.
There is nothing…NOTHING to admire in a malignant narcissist like George W. Bush. It's really worth a read on the mechanics of NPD.
mikkel and tidbits-
I agree that Cheney had great influence over foreign policy during the first 4-6 years. That's one reason that Bush refused to get rid of Rumsfeld and also why we took such a hard line on dealing with North Korea and Palestine during Bush's first term. He had no foreign policy experience and was probably dumbfounded after 9/11. This made him vulnerable to the cunning and more experienced Cheney- who knew how to run operations behind the scenes.
I neither love nor hate Bush, and I see the point Douthat is trying to make, but the bottom line is the positive things Bush did were too little, too late. It reminds me of the spin people are trying to put on the Carter presidency. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t.
DaGoat – Earthy, but well stated.
I have not read Douthat's piece yet (I need at least two cups of coffee and a little more time to gather my strength before I attempt that), but I can say this: I am SO glad I can look at that face in the photograph and know that he IS NOT the president of the United States anymore.
Daveinboca hit the head on the nail:
“the US presidency has been on auto-pilot much of the last half-century.”
Amen.
Two standouts, however…
Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.
Ronald Reagan was decisive, consistent, and successful on the conservative front.
Barack Obama is decisive and consistent on the liberal front (jury is still out on his success, though I doubt it will be much).
Carter: Good man – poor executive – poor politician.
Reagan: Good man – great executive – great politician.
Bush I: Decent man – poor executive – poor politician.
Clinton: Poor man – good executive – great politician.
Bush II: Good man – poor executive – poor politician.
Obama: Good man – poor executive – great politician.
Why in the heck can we not have a person that is Great in all respects.
Is that too much to ask?
Good comments and good questions, JD.
With respect to “Why in the heck can we not have a person that is Great in all respects,” just an observation that, perhaps, while executive and political abilities are relatively easy and objectively to evaluate and grade, evaluating a man as to whether he is a “good” (or bad?) man, is much more difficult and much more subjective.
For example:
I believe most, regardless of political persuasions, would generally agree with your ratings of the various Presidents on executive amd political abilities, but many will disagree with you, and with each other, on whether for example, Bush was a “decent” man. (Just look at some of the comments above).
What is he differense between a “decent” and “good” man anyway?
Is Clinton a “poor” man because of his infidelity? How about all other qualities that make up a “man”?
Just a thought
“How about all other qualities that make up a “man”?”
And are they the same qualities that would make up a “good woman”?
Carter: Good man – good executive – lousy politician.
Reagan: Dirt bag – Alzheimer patient – great politician.
Bush I: Even Bigger Dirt bag than Reagan – competent executive – lousy politician.
Clinton: Dirt bag – decent executive – great politician.
Bush II: first class dirt-bag – barely qualified to be a dog catcher – great politician
Obama: Don't know – don't know – great politician.
Very good point, D.E.
I broke my own personal rule: “never attempt to judge a man's heart” per the Bible.
For the most part, those traits (good man, poor man) basically came from my gut and were a reference to character.
Unlike most conservatives, I actually think Obama has goodness at heart. I could be wrong.
Bush was a twit, but his intentions were good and his sincerity real. I could be wrong there too.
But you are correct. Most of us would match perfectly on the other two traits: executive and political ability.
I still want that one great man (or woman) to lead my nation and support the Constitution. He or she is out there somewhere.
Yes. Same qualities.
I have to second the comment that infidelity alone does not make Bill Clinton a bad man. His philanthropic work as an ex-president rivals Carter's— and his ability to connect with the rich and famous to aid his causes is unrivaled.
Thinking of some other unfaithful political figures— John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Jack Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, LBJ, Franklin Roosevelt , Thomas Jefferson, etc puts this in perspective.