4:11AM
Tom's KnoxNews column today
Sunday, May 21, 2006 at 4:11AM Post-presidency for Bush already here
The Bush post-presidency began earlier than any other leader since Richard Nixon, whose second term was curtailed by impeachment hearings.
No, George Bush won't be leaving office early, and he won't even be subjected to the same political humiliations as Bill Clinton on his way out.
But make no mistake, Bush's lame-duck period has arrived with a vengeance - at least internationally. [keep reading]
Reader Comments (8)
i wonder: would it be fair to say that Bush was trying to be CEO-ish in letting his appointed people handle the details of the postwar, but failed to properly oversee the process, thus resulting in a lame cop-out?
this is obviously not important, but just something i wondered while reading the article.
Hmmm. Something sounds out of whack here - Putin, Akhmedinejad, Chavez all sounding bluff and blustery and proposing to ignore Bush. What is common to all three? All have large supplies of oil and gas - commodities that are in high demand right now. All three can ignore to some degree the need to be connected to international financial markets in order to generate foreign capital. Unfortunately, all three, as well as the bulk of the Middle East countries, are "mono-crop" economies. All they can export is oil or gas, none has anything else that is much in demand anywhere in the world.
This points to a basic weakness in the core-gap debate. A core country is well connected internationally, both politically and economically. This connectedness has a moderating influence on their behavior. Behave badly and international capital flees. No direct foreign investments - no economy to speak of. Behave well, follow the rules, and DFI increases to help power the economy.
The counterpoint to all this is - sell off your large supply of stored capital (oil or gas) and you can behave anyway you want. Look at Venezuela - they just nationalized their oil industry. Watch DFI leave that country and watch their economy run out of everything but oil money. Sounds like a great situation to be in, but watch them as the cost of oil drives the consumer countries to alternatives that are less fickle, expensive, and concentrated.
Steve, less a weakness to me than a characteristic of poor conntectivity. Mono-crop is right, and that means inherently unstable. We constantly have bad things going on with Canada, but likewise a host of good things. So the balance is there in the diversity. We're getting there on China and other New Cores. With Gap-ish states (and Russia can certainly step backwards for a while, as life is rarely linear) enjoying an oil boom, we see how warped, unidimensional connectivity typically ain't so good.
Everyone's connected and trades something. The Core tends to be defined by states that trade a lot of stuff, so deep connectivity in my vernacular. The Gap tends to trade one or two things, and thus thin connectivity in my vernacular. On average, deep connectivity equates to peace and stability (but more diplomacy to deal with all those transactions), whereas thin connectivity is associated with threat and violence. So, on average, the more connectivity, the better.
Mr. Barnett,
I see your point. My intent was to show the problem of having a large commodity base off which to live - connectivity, or the lack of it, isn't so painful for the guy who has a large savings off which to live. So, the pressure to connect for the benefit of the population (more jobs, more income, better living conditions) isn't as compelling or as urgent. This current set of conditions allows many of these people to ignore the long haul improvements in their economies and to believe that they can live much better if they are less well connected to that "hedonistic" western culture of the infidel. Absent that big bank account, they'd have to either drift into Darfur-like conditions or get connected and moderate their behavior.
I tend to think in analogies: If I have a huge savings account, I don't need to wash, shave and clean up, nor to behave particularly nice, because I don't need a job to feed myself. That's called eccentric. Showing all those same symptoms without the money is called homelessness. If I need the job, the "eccentric" or homeless behavior has to go. I think Akhmadinejad is trying to be eccentric, dangerously so with his drive to get a big bomb, and has oil to allow him to be mostly unmoderated. The moderating influences don't have the same level of impact on his regime's behavior as they would on some other country.
The large pool of valuable commodity they have permits them to behave very eccentric. The concern should be where this will end - Ted Kozinsky or Howard Hughes eccentricity.
I think that it is possible (I won't assign a probability to it) for President Bush to come back from this. Bill Clinton certainly did.
There are levers of power that President Bush has not used at all. He could try vetoing a bill or two, for example (he has yet to issue any vetoes in his presidency). On the energy front, he could open bids and create a market for GTL by stopping the purchase of petroleum by the federal government. On immigration, Bush needs to get past the Mexican elections so Obrador does not join the Castro/Chavez axis but once that hurdle is cleared, a sensible plan can be worked out and President Bush has already laid down his chits reasonably near where we're very likely to end up.
American Presidents who are either new or perceived to be weak tend to be challenged. They must establish or reestablish their willingness and ability to hurt anyone who crosses us. Unfortunately, President Bush will likely have to do some of that. I believe that we can do it pretty easily. In fact we may already *be* doing it in plausibly deniable fashion. Bombs keep going off in SW Iran and the Iranian government is increasing troop levels there. It could just be pushback from Iranian arab shiites who are discontent at the freedoms their cousins have gained over the border. It could be something else. It's tough to tell for sure without a security clearance.
GWB is the hammer...and the nail is values and actions that contradict common/core values of the USA. i.e. not France or Russia or China etc. Fortunately the USA core values are inherently what streamlines the social and economic problem resolutions. All nations / societies have problems...it's how these are 'handled'. The libs,leftists,and now permanently disenfranchised and valueless political parties will find the GWB innoculation is also effective against them too. (Their impotent fury is obvious) I used to believe these elements were 'insane'...now I believe they are just leaderless 'forks' that will wither. You don't have to be the master of the universe to switch a massively long train onto the right tracks.
Bush...an international lame duck? (tell that to the next dead al Qhaida rep you see) or discover what reaction the SKoreans and Saudis would have toward total US pullout. Diplomacy is simply the piss stream from the power holder. It's not an objective...diplomacy is always a sidebar mumble while business gets done with power (economic / military) exercised or displayed. Respect is an exchange among equals... there is no correspondent to the US. Good thing our values aren't those of Stalin, etc. Fear of reprisal is the bedrock that underlies any diplomatic discussion....been this way since day 1.
The assignment of 'value' to various ephemeral international relationships is "making licence plates" while we get the essential power-extension work accomplished. Bandaids after the necessary disciplinary action. Truth and reconciliation routines floated to assuage the ruffled feathers of the ancillary and nonparticipating. Talk is cheap.