« Cheney Loves a Secret | Main | Harry Potter vs. The Law of Dreams »
July 18, 2007
Bush Respects the Voters
I feel like David Brooks' picture of Bush -- now a man completely untethered from reality -- didn't attract quite enough notice when it came out last Sunday. I was struck, though, by this admission:
Bush said he will get Petraeus' views unfiltered by the Pentagon establishment. He feels no need to compromise to head off opposition from Capitol Hill and is confident that he can rebuild popular support. "I have the tools," he said.
So what Bush has been telling himself, apparently, is that public support is really malleable, and he still retains the bully pulpit power to rebuild it. He just hasn't decided to expend the effort yet. That's a rather unsettling admission, actually. Bush has managed to delude himself into believing the war isn't actually unpopular, but that he's just been focusing on other things besides the cultivation of public support. But so long as he believes the public is so weak-minded that their opposition is transient and their support can be summoned later on, he ned never face up to what it means to be undemocratically pursuing a loathed war above the opposition of the electorate.
July 18, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I don't believe Bush actually cares what the people think--never has, and doesn't now. Nor does he plan to start expending any effort to "rebuild popular support".
George Bush doesn't care about _________ people. Honestly, if people couldn't get that from him in 2000, the majority of them are certainly getting it now.
So when he ponders this concept of bridge-repair and says "I have the tools", I am simply reminded of another of his charming bon mots: "I've earned capital in this election, and I'm going to spend it."
Posted by: litbrit | Jul 18, 2007 11:36:25 AM
The bit about the core 'theological' source of his certainty should be completely damning of the man in a rational country. One more reason to regret that American isn't one.
Posted by: JohnTh | Jul 18, 2007 11:42:29 AM
So what Bush has been telling himself, apparently, is that public support is really malleable, and he still retains the bully pulpit power to rebuild it.
I worry that he's right.
Posted by: Jason G. | Jul 18, 2007 12:18:09 PM
Wouldn't you love to know what (or who) he considers his "tools?"
Posted by: mb | Jul 18, 2007 12:52:56 PM
mb asks a good question. when i read Bush's comment, that was my first thought.
my second thought: he thinks a war with Iran would rally the people behind him, but he's waiting for the key moment that will have him exiting the WH with approvals at an all time high.
then I considered whatever other tools might work. Resignation from office might help. Announcing that Cheney has been cut off from access and staff would be positive. But things along this line didn't seem typical of GW, so I fell back to the Iran War. That seemed completely consistent with his record.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 18, 2007 1:50:17 PM
John mentions the theological aspect, which Brooks quotes Bush explaining:
Bush is convinced history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: "It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist."
This illustrates something that bothers many people about religion and its place in politics. When Martin Luther King relied on his faith to keep moving in the Civil Rights struggle, even when his life was in danger, that was great. But here's the downside, with Bush clinging to a similar faith in a way that appears to remove him from reality. I think one problem with Bush is in how he interprets his faith. He sees it as validating his preconceptions, while it's clear that even if God wants all to be free, it doesn't follow that Bush's way is the way to do that.
More broadly, Bush's confidence might be a good thing in a leader more grounded in reality. But reality has a way of making you humble in a way that Bush just isn't.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 18, 2007 3:40:06 PM
Jason & mb & JPO beat me to.
Bush still has SAC.
I also, if that is his thinking, believe he could be right. A massive attack on Iran, a nuclear attack on Iran, would confront Americans with very stark and difficult choices as the world united against them.
Y'all know me, and I am not even sure what I would do. If I had any freedom to choose.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 18, 2007 4:27:37 PM
I'm not concerned about his imagined tools... I'm just curious when he thinks he'll be able to do the rebuilding - he's essentially irrelevant now, nxt year's focus on the next election will only make him more so. At that point, what's to rebuild? I hadn't evn noticed that aspect of Brooks' piece (which, on my own blog, I point out that it speaks to Brooks uncritical fascination with high WASPiness), but jeez, is Bush dense if he thinks that we're all just waiting breathlessly for the "rebuilding."
Posted by: weboy | Jul 18, 2007 5:34:21 PM
The disturbing thing about Brooks’ take on Bush, is Brooks’ belief in the genuine sincerity of W. There seems to be a great number of people, even some of his harsher critics, who rebuke his actions and policies yet maintain a shred of sympathy for him based on a belief that he does have some core-vision for a better world, even if the mechanics of that vision are wrong. His use of words like “faith” and “freedom” that have no meaning in the context in which he uses them somehow manage to persuade people into an awkward sympathy for him even if they argue vociferously against the actual action and policy of his administration. And I’m not just referring to the Brooks’ of the world, who represent a much less critical version of this crowd. There are legitimately progressive people with sharp criticisms of the Bush Administration, who nevertheless believe that despite their differences they share a base level commitment to democracy.
It is high time for this mythology to go. Bush is no more committed to freedom, democracy, and faith then the terrorists he claims “hate our freedom.” He must pay lip service to those virtues as our system demands that leadership at least treat those as valuable in the abstract, but how is this any different from Bin Laden’s manipulation of Islam? Bin Laden would not be able to achieve any influence in the Arab world without paying lip service to certain virtues of Muslim belief, but once lip service is paid that doesn’t stop him from a grotesque manipulation that really serves his own ends. Bush’s manipulation of elections, willingness to torture, attack on civil liberties, disregard for the balance of power in our government, and of course the commuting of Scooter Libby are not momentary lapses from or flaws in what still amounts to a belief in democracy; they are concrete proof that the president’s “faith” and “belief in freedom” have no clothes.
But at the end of the day, does it really matter whether or not Bush is merely a severely misguided true-believer or an effective con-artist preaching only that which he believes will be effective in manipulating people to go along with a plan that is really only about serving his (and his inner-circle’s) much more nefarious objectives? The results are that thousands of people are dying, billions in tax paying dollars are being idiotically spent, and we continue to watch the world become a more dangerous place. People are entitled to mistakes, no policy will ever be perfect, and thus bad results can be forgiven by good motives, but only to an extent. Bush, even if we buy the apocryphal notion that his motives are good, crossed that threshold a long time ago. The continued apologies for him on that front are perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this administration’s moment in history vis a vis media coverage.
On a somewhat different note, what is with Brooks’ simplistic absolutism in this piece? Either Bush’s vision of history is correct, or Tolstoy’s. This type of absolutism is obviously very self-serving to a Bush apologist: his vision could still work, there are two distinct possibilities and only time will tell, thus we must let time tell. In addition to the utter stupidity of such a question, he acts as though this is the first time such a question has ever been asked and his conclusion implies that perhaps in 10 years we’ll have the conclusive answer to this question. Academics should show greater gratitude to Bush as he is answering one of the great scholarly questions of all time: what is the driving force behind history? I suppose Brooks’ understanding of history is just a bit too myopic to grasp the concept that there are no black and whites in history, that leadership as well as movements on the ground both matter, that there are limitations to both, and that every situation encompasses a different synthesis of those two forces as well as countless others. I guess my intensely harsh reaction to this article is the larger feelings it has stirred about the way this administration has been treated in the media. You have “thoughtful” apologists like Brooks who present false dichotomies like the Bush-Tolstoy visions of history, or the critics who have never really stepped outside of their “American-ness” and maintained that a product of our system couldn’t be rotten to the core even if many of the practical aspect of his vision were off. These types of manipulations are what make me lose faith in the media because of the failure to present a complete picture when one is so desperately needed.
Posted by: mattie | Jul 19, 2007 3:06:11 PM
