Bush Who

Bush Who

George W Bush is a mystery to me, and, it would appear, to many others as well.

Not only has he proposed and effected poor policies, overseen the catastrophic implementation of those policies, but, as President of the United States - from the bully pulpit – he has reported to the American people what he has been (and is) about with persistent, virtually constant, duplicity. The first two offenses are, however regrettable, within the realm of expectation, but the last we do not expect. The office and its bully pulpit have been treated with surpassing disrespect.

To make clear what I see to be Bush’s almost constant practice in using the ‘bully pulpit’:

Suppose an FDA panel issued a warning against a particular drug, citing a clear body of evidence. Suppose, then, that the CEO of the company marketing the drug gave a briefing in which the evidence cited by the FDA was dismissed, more or less by rigorously ignoring it. Instead, he presented a sales pitch for the drug, i.e. the construct of its marketing managers and advertising agency. You would say, no surprise there. Suppose, now, the head of the FDA repeated essentially the same performance: explicitly dismissing the report of his own panel, failing to deal with it, while, at the same time echoing the drug’s advertising campaign. Impossible[!] Outrageous[!] you would respond. Yet the action I have just proposed for the FDA head is a very accurate description of how this President has used the ‘bully pulpit’. In dealing with issues of the greatest consequence, rather than honestly present a contention to the American people everyone sees is there, and then forthrightly facing up to it, he acts the part of a marketing executive employing the all the sophisticated resources of modern advertising to ‘sell’ the chosen point of view. Others may do this, but high public officials, in matters of grave consequence, should not, and the President of the United States, speaking from the ‘bully pulpit’ must not. It is betrayal most foul and abominable.

This President has done so many things that defy simple common sense, and said so many things – with utter conviction (no less!) – that have later been shown to be untrue, half-truths, or gross distortions and misrepresentation of truth, that it stains credulity well beyond the breaking point to propose his acts to be those of a simple, honest man doing his best, and just getting it wrong.

Beyond these things, one sees someone who professes ‘The Prince of Peace’ to be his ‘favorite philosopher’, and yet leapt into a war with Iraq as anything but a ‘last resort’. One sees, as well, someone who shows what might be best described as compartmentalized compassion, someone who will meet privately to comfort those who have lost loved ones in the Iraq war he so clearly could have, and should have, avoided. In this it is difficult not to see an ability to screen himself away from the emotional and psychological consequences of his actions.

In the January 10, 2008 Salon, Camille Paglia makes this observation:

“But amid the glut of campaign news, Bush has been oddly recessive. When he surfaces, he looks a bit untidy around the edges, and his manner veers from the awkwardly jocular to the portentously overemphatic. After seven years in office, Bush still hasn't welded his different parts into a steady, consistent presidential persona.”

It occurred to me, over the years, we have consistently seen a ‘smirk/grin’ reflex(?) from Bush. Is it an indication of a poorly-integrated personality suddenly stumbling over a fault line?

Bush is known to despise this kind of analysis, and perforce, to shun any self examination.

How to make sense of it all?

To begin with, I am not asking: Can a rationale (or set of rationales) be proposed? As anyone with a scientific background knows, it is always possible to fashion a theory, but a satisfactory one is another matter entirely. Rather, I am asking: can a rationale be proposed that is consistent with all, or nearly all, of the evidence.

There have been attempts, generally falling into two categories: personal and external.

The personal ones: Saddam tried to kill my daddy, Maureen Dowd’s darker Oedipal competition with his father, or others I have seen, can explain inner psychological and emotional leanings, but something more than ‘leanings’ seems to be required for so consequential a set of outcomes. Besides, the evidence we have seen on all of these is more by inference than from any really close observation of the actual people in question.

The ‘external’ explanations – (1) an assertion of American power in a vital area of the world, (2) the need to ‘do something’ against Islamic radicalism, (3) pursuit of a ‘freedom agenda’, and (4) pursuit of domestic political advantage (the ‘permanent Republican majority’). Taken singly or together, they open to compelling and plausible rationales - but there are flaws. The first explanation can be made almost entirely persuasive, but fails to convince at an absolutely crucial point. The next two crumble when faced with a simple maxim: ‘the wisdom to act is not wisdom in the actions chosen’. What made this war, in this way, at this time, the way to proceed after 9/11 and against Islamic radicalism? The last, as Frank Rich establishes in The Greatest Story Ever Sold, actually becomes the most logically consistent, if chillingly cold blooded and utterly foolhardy.

The first explanation is the ultimate statement of Real Politik, made by the world’s sole remaining superpower. A stable, reliable flow of oil from the Middle East is a vital interest for the developed world, and nations go to war to defend their vital interests. Close case! We have only to add that America arrogate to itself the responsibility for securing a vital resource, and, of course, the inside track on an enduring economic and military control of that resource. The decision is made to pursue the matter in complete cold blood (Yes: Blood for Oil!), disdaining to responsibly persuade either the public or the congress. Electing, instead, to use all the resources of Madison Avenue, and a well financed, well oiled right wing media establishment to sell their chosen course. It is a virtually seamless, fully adequate, explanation for all that happened. EXCEPT for the shocking mess that resulted. If you are as clear eyed, and ruthless in pursuit of your ends as this Real Politik rationale requires, you WILL be prepared to lock down and tie down post war Iraq to secure the vital interests that were your objective. Yet the planning for Iraq after Saddam manifestly failed to provide for difficulties all too readily anticipated. To say it was grossly inadequate devastates understatement. Their plans explicitly were to be down to 30,000 troops by September! In this light, how can anyone defend Real Politik calculation as a satisfactory explanation for the administration’s actions – not to mention the actions of the President at the head of that administration.

The inability of 2 and 3 above to satisfy as explanations for the Iraq War has been pointed out exhaustively by many. Beyond the (Wisdom to act . . . . , this war at this time, in this way) ‘crumbling block’ cited above, I will mention two here. [1] There were clearly too many ways the Iraq War could go too far wrong, and too few it could go as right we would need to have it go right once we began. [Specifically, we would need to have a stable, democratic, pluralistic, prosperous Iraq in a time frame effective in significantly compromising the appeal of radical Islam within the Arab Muslim world. Anything less would be net gain for Osama bin Laden.] [2] Kenneth Pollack published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq in September 2002. It is said to have ‘persuaded’ many of the ‘liberal hawks’ in their support for the war. Although the book meshed all too perfectly with the emerging Bush administration’s desires, Pollack himself confessed he did not believe Saddam was next on the list after 9/11 and

Afghanistan. Well up on the list, perhaps, but NOT next.

This leaves Frank Rich’s domestic political agenda. It is so stunning that it encourages one to dismiss it almost out of hand. And yet, strictly on its own terms, driven by the infatuated, incredibly well established and well funded, devotees of a ‘permanent Republican majority’, there is no obvious downside, as exists with avengeance in regard to 2 and 3 above, not to mention the decisive flaw in 1. Might it be possible, to propose a President looking to do this ‘big thing’, seeing all the ways possibilities 1, 2 and 3 do offer for positive outcomes, but focused sufficiently on 4, with no great obvious problems in prospect, so that the all too clear difficulties of 2 and 3 are blown off, and the utterly essential ‘end game’ of 1 is assumed to be ‘an automatic’: we couldn’t possibly get that wrong; we will have ‘won’ and be in absolute charge. In short, all of the explanations 1 – 4 are in play, but they are ‘cherry picked’, and inadequately examined. One need only add the same completely ruthless pursuit of this end as proposed in the case of explanation 1.

I would still have to regard this as highly improbable, but new evidence on the ‘personal’ side has recently appeared. It is Robert Draper’s ‘Dead Certain’. It offers an inside look, not just at the events of Bush’s Presidency, but at the personality of the man himself. Two themes constantly recur. The first is a persistently voiced disdain for ‘small ball’: working the details on issues, making small adjustments here and there, producing incremental, if worthy, gains. This is a man who longs to do big things, to be identified with large themes and large outcomes. 9/11 opened the possibility. The second recurring theme is that Bush is an intensely competitive alpha male. The book constantly comes back to Bush as a driven exerciser, whether running (early in his Presidency) and now, a biker, he will positively exult in ‘waxing’ the younger secret service security personnel assigned to keep up with him. The President is shown reveling in the fact that, with biking, he can keep his heart rate up at 140 -176 for 90 minutes. He is ‘the man’, in charge, and very much wants to be seen as such.

Another story Draper reports plays upon this theme. It relates to Colin Powell – initially projected as the true luminary of the new administration. When Bush first, and effusively, introduced Powell as his Secretary of State, Powell took over the presentation and positively glowed with intelligence, sophistication, and command. As this unfolded, Bush, according to Draper, became noticeably uncomfortable. Not too long after that, the President administered an explicit humiliation to Powell. Bush likes meetings to begin on time. When Powell was late to a meeting early in the administration, the President ordered the doors locked. When Powell was caught rattling the door a few minutes later, ‘everybody had a good laugh’ And, of course Bush made his point: I’m the top dog here.

More recently, an NY Times Elizabeth Bumiller piece on Condi Rice charts the rising profile she has assumed with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Previously the closest of buddies, Bumiller reports the President has begun to refer to Condi, one gathers sarcastically, as ‘Madame’ Rice. A subtle game of ‘put down’ appears to be currently in play.

Then, in Draper’s accounts, contrary to conventional wisdom, the President is consistently presented as presiding over meetings with engaged command, driving things with sharp questions. But what remains unclear is the whether the active probing is a search for evidence and clarity, or just a means of establishing who’s in charge, numero uno.

So let us suppose Frank Rich is right about the domestic political agenda being the master rationale behind Iraq. The others are adjuncts, insufficiently examined with potentially tragic outcomes flowing in their wake. No matter! You have a President desiring to be a figure of great consequence, who sees the opportunity and will force the way with a personal style of moment to moment dominance. Once the matter is decided, however flawed the choice, doubts are banished, and further reflection becomes one with: ‘thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’re with the pale cast of thought’. Add to this Bush’s faith in God’s guidance: He will not allow me to go wrong. From this point, doing God’s work, an intense competitor sets out to WIN the argument - a point of macho honor. He will drive forward fiercely, say anything, strike any pose, to get his way. It isn’t reason, let alone being the maker of wise choices, but being seen to be the leader, the decider.

So.

Do I have a ‘W’ I can believe in? Nearly. Of course, going to war as we did in the first quarter of 2003, still doesn’t ‘add up’ if faced with any rigorous examination. What is in question here is rather whether one can credibly propose a President who could, or would, evade such rigor in matters of such consequence. Circle back to the man who compartmentalizes, disdains introspection, and who despises self-examination. Such a man, it seems to me could plausibly shirk the rigor of integrating all he knows, and dwell only on those things which open to other aspects of his personality: a desire to be recognized for something great, and a blinding drive to be ‘the man’. Sad in other contexts, and tragic in this.

In the end, perhaps the most curious thing in all of it is why this has been, and remains, a matter of consuming interest. It does bother me deeply to see a leader and a course of action I can’t come to terms with, that ultimately make little or no sense. Is it simply that human beings want (need?) to believe they understand, at least at some level, what the people and forces that palpably move things in very consequential ways around them are about; even if, in the end, the motivation is seen to be significantly irrational, where the most we can do is make a determination as to the particular nature and origin of the irrationality?

If I’ve succeeded: Cold comfort!