The Sunday column on the Bush "post-presidency"
Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 7:27AM I am reticent to write those kinds of articles because: 1) it can come off as piling on right now with Bush; and 2) whenever you offer some criticism you usually get feedback that says--in effect--"You didn't go far enough!"
The latter was definitely true with this one, and that tells me a lot about the depth of dislike for Bush right now (thus solidifying the column's point all the more). I didn't get any GOP emails saying, "How dare you?!" Instead I got plenty of Left, Center and even Right feedback that castigated me primarily over one line (That Bush goes down as a "great one-term president" who unfortunately won a second term). The tone of each email was startingly the same: "How dare you even consider Bush to be successful in his first term!"
Seriously, I remain stunned at how Bush has managed to alienate so many and energize the opposing base to a degree even beyond the profound Clinton hatred by the Right that I saw in the 1990s. He has simply surpassed Clinton and is legitimately described, as I did in the column, as approaching Nixonian "heights" (or perhaps "depths" is the better phrase).
One is tempted to say that '06 and '08 are the Democrats' to lose, but given past results, that ain't saying much.
Feeling almost human today with 24 hours of antibiotics in me. But glad I didn't do the planned four small jet flights today. Fear my ear drums wouldn't have survived, and they already bear the scar tissue of too many surgical repairs.
Reader Comments (16)
And yet, every time the conventional wisdom has spelled doom for Bush, he seems to get through it somehow.
Didn't see the column, and don't really care.
Your point of his loosing popularity effecting his ability to govern remains valid.
Of course, with a hostile press, it's hard to imagine what he could do to improve his popularity.
Well, I understand Dr. Barnett's exasperation at the President's approach...and the Clinton comparisons begin to seem apt:
The two Boomer Presidents, Clinton and Bush, seem to represent both sides of the same coin that was forged in the post-WWII period, minted during the ‘60’s and imprinted by Vietnam.
Clinton on the one side had no real father, no compelling family wartime narrative, no expectations, met Kennedy in person and decided to become him (the critical difference being that Kennedy was also a war hero who showed genuine personal courage). The ‘60’s movements gave Clinton an unusual career rise. Avoiding Vietnam gave him a slippery political method to carry forward to the White House.
His Vietnam narrative said that the Military COULD NEVER BE part of moral global strategic planning, but adroitly saw military operations as a tactical means to his strategic globalizing ends…’Here Al, you take the ‘Football’, I’m going to Davos’.
Bush, on the other side, had a hero father and a historic family wartime narrative, high expectations that he failed in his lack of wartime heroism. Avoiding Vietnam set a date for a future bold atoning stroke that was made possible after September 11. It may be simply that Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ in May 2003 was really the ‘Lost Mission’ leftover from a war service that never happened. That does not mean he is lacks heartfelt commitment to the Big Bang and transforming the Mid-East et al.
His Vietnam narrative said that the Military MUST be part of moral global strategic planning, but the specifics of what came next were outside that narrative and simply less viscerally compelling...’Sheesh Dick, let Colin and Rummy fight it out!’.
So Clinton got the strategic nature of globalization partially because the old military/security strategic imperative was outside his moral script…but, was thusly incapable of a rash, bold stroke that crystallized the era’s security challenge of terrorism as a threat to global integration and connectivity.
Bush was solidly in the ‘globaloney’ camp pre-9/11 and therefore was very capable of the bold stroke because it lined up perfectly with his moral script…but, was thusly incapable of visioning the hard slog of Barnett’s ‘everything else’ that goes with that horizontal movement.
Domestically, the two are indistinguishable except on taxes and some social issues although Mrs. Clinton has moved toward Bush on those so it becomes more of a wash.
Seek the Boomer/Vietnam narrative and you shall find, this incredulous Xer says.
Closing the Gap is tough, hard, and not for the faint hearted and essentially long term. It does not fit into the political and media cycles in the internet age where everyone expects results yesterday. If not you get burned.
It is about managing expectations. The nearest parallel would be the European economy. They say their economic is fantastic and growing when the GDP is 1.6 up from 0.8, that's double - that's great.
In America that would bring out the doom and gloom sayers - recession is around the corner, the bubble is bursting etc. It is our god given right to expect the gdp to be greater than 3.0%.
Which expectation is right?
Inflate expecations ( hype ) prepare for the let down.
The Iraq war is following the exact path of Gartner's hype curve:
Technology trigger
Peak of Inflated Expectations
Trough of Disillusionment
Rise of englightment ( so something like that )
Plateau of maturity
It's funny that despite GWB's decline in ratings, no clear opponent or successor seems to be emerging with the possible exception of Hillary as a kind of expected default. There are quite a few wannabes, but no one with any clear momentum. Perhaps it's too early.
I'm also beginning to wonder if splitting Iraq into 3 parts is not a viable option to diffuse the oppostion in the Iraq "legislature" and at home. Isn't that what we had to do in Yougoslavia?
Tom, you yourself imply that Bush second term has more or less failed (I'm going off this post, not the article, so forgive me if I miss some subtlty). There is no doubt that Bush will be defined by Iraq, and our bungling is Iraq is why Bush has failed his second term. The problem with saying he was a great first term president is that one cannot, failure that Iraq is now from it's genesis. Maybe Bush would have been a great first term President if he'd set in motion something that someone better qualified had closed on, but that's not what happenned. The only way I can see to look at the first term is the beginning of failure.
If the failure wasn't the fault of his administration, one could be more generous. But I don't think there's a single external force one could point to that has 'interefered' with Bush's plan. Nothing has messed up the adminstrations plan; the plan was just never sufficient to begin with.
As for Keith_Indy, this idea of 'hostile press' is foolish. The press is not hostile, they're opportunistic. They swarmed all over Clinton when they could just as they swarm over Bush. Each side always labels the press as 'against them' because it's convenient, and this is true of specific papers and stations, but the press operates in a free market. They serve up what sells. If everyone in America was *really* for Bush, the press as a whole would cater to that--because it would make them money. The press amplifies and distorts, but they do so (taken on the whole) with equal opprotunity.
Shucks. "... one cannot, failure that Iraq is now from it's genesis" should read "... one cannot separate the failure that Iraq is now from it's genesis."
Let me provide a little pro-Bush commentary here (I know, lonely job these days, I only wish it paid). I do not think that Bush has failed at all in Iraq. I think that a great deal of the criticism of Iraq is a combination of partisanship and mobbing. The goal in Iraq is, and has been from the start, to create an island of muslim functionality in the sea of dystopia that is the ME. We'd like them to be self-sustaining, functional, free, and to a remarkable extent, they are well on their way without the neuroses and shame that marred our post WW II makeovers of Germany and Japan.
I have argued in the past and still maintain that in a shame culture like Iraq's, we cannot "win" and shame our Iraqi allies. The two are utterly incompatible. Had we had the troops to put in 500,000 effectives on the ground in Iraq and keep that troop level indefinitely, it would have been an error to do it because we truly would have rammed democracy down their throats.
Today, they have a democratic republic because they have fought, bled, and died for it. They have an army that is instrumental in putting down the insurgency and Iraqis are proud of it. In a year or five, they'll have a police force they'll be proud of too. Every family in Iraq has members who have stood up in the face of threats and said "I want democracy and I'm willing to risk my life for it" multiple times. This is incredibly important and the basic material for national myth making, turning Iraq into a real country.
Could it have been done better by the US? No doubt. Would they still have viewed it as their accomplishment? Would the resulting polity have been as self-sustaining as I see Iraq's is turning into? I doubt it.
Now how do you defend your failure as purposeful without shaming your allies once again? That, I think, is the key to Bush's inadequate defense of himself.
Amazing.
"Hostile press"?
Who do you think you are fooling Zane?
Three solid years of the MSM piling on GWB produced the desired results.
No big surprise.
Just very sad .....
I am open to the idea that Bush was a great one term president, but can someone explain the argument for this position?
Also, why does Tom believe the following to be true? Is it simply because Iraq has weakened our resources and/or Bush's political capital? "So, until January 2009 rolls around, don't be surprised to see America increasingly disrespected by regional rogues, frequently ignored by rising powers and often described as a declining great power by long-time allies."
T M Lutas: Very well said! I like your analysis of the way things have gone in Iraq.
I remember during the days running up to the war I saw Thomas Friedman do an interview on C-SPAN wher he was aksed what we could expect after we defeated Saddam's army. His reply was something to the effect that we might see most Iraqis grateful, mostly secular in outlook, and ready to rebuild their country. That was the good scenario and I think the administration was expecting that.
On the other hand he said what we might find was a society riven by religious rivalry and a bunch of Baathists unwilling to let go of their power. In which case he predicted pretty much the scenario that we got. I don't think the administration was really ready for that and that was a mistake.
What impresses me is that in the face of a lot of chaos and things not going according to expectations; Bush, Rummy, and our forces in Iraq didn't lose their nerve. They just kept working the problem and now the Iraqis are working the problem. I expect in three years our role will be quite small.
As for a hostile press. Nicholas Berg was murdered during a lot of the press coverage of Abu Ghraib. The Abu Ghraib story with pictures was plastered all over the front page and written in the most slanted, inflammatory, anti- military, anti-Bush fashion. OTH the Nick Berg story was on page five and was a perfect example of responsible journalism. Who, what, where, when and how. No hyper adjectives, no hint of outrage at such a scabrous crime, no moral judgements; just the facts maam. Certainly wouldn't want to write a story that might incite anger against the enemy now would we? Couldn't write a story that might make it look like Bush was right and justified in going after this bunch of murderers.
The Bush bashing from Dr.Barnett used to bother me but now I kind of look at it as a way to establish street cred with the Democrats in case, God help us, we wind up with a Democratic administration after 2008.
After Zbigniew Brzynski and Sam Nunn, the Democrats' bench gets pretty thin if you are looking for Democrats who specialize in foreign policy, don't hate the United States and would not benefit enormously from a glass belly button. A party that could entrust serious responsibility to people like Strobe Talbot, Ramsey Clark or Madalyn Albright does not fill me with confidence that they could steer the ship of state through the rocky shoals of international relations. With someone like Dr.Barnett onboard, we might avoid some of the worst disasters.
By the way, Larry Kudlow mentioned Dr.Barnett on his blog as "brilliant miltary analyst Thomas P.M. Barnett".
'The Bush bashing from Dr.Barnett used to bother me but now I kind of look at it as a way to establish street cred with the Democrats in case, God help us, we wind up with a Democratic administration after 2008.'
c'mon, Mark. that's a little cynical. Tom has plenty of Democrat street cred: he briefed then voted for Kerry! ;-)
and thanks for the info on Kudlow. here's the link, which i will also repost to the front page. plus, i'm in high-level negotiations with them for a sidebar link exchange (ie, i sent them an email ;-)
Actually I think we got both the best and the worse outcomes that Friedmen identified.
Most Iraqis did welcome us, and wanted to rebuild.
Baathists do want to hang on to as much power as they can.
It's a mixed bag, like most human experiences.
As far as "Bush bashing", re-read his post. Criticism is not bashing. He gives good reasoning for his analysis. You can disagree with it, which I do on some points, but present actual evidence to support your position.
And I'll have to wonder what Tom thinks about this:
WaPo article
Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.
The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said.
********
Is Iran blinking?
Now, there are a number of ways the US could react, and it is certainly possible that Bush, et al, will do the wrong thing. But it is an interesting development, none-the-less.
Of course, there's also the flip side...
JPost Article
Iran conducted a test launch Tuesday night of the Shihab-3 intermediate-range ballistic missile, which is capable of reaching Israel and US targets in the region, Israel Radio reported. The test came hours before Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with US President George W Bush in Washington to discuss the Iranian threat.
Military officials said it was not clear if this most recent test indicated an advance in the capabilities of the Shihab 3. They said the test was likely timed to coincide with the Washington summit and with comments made by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah during celebrations in Beirut marking the 6th anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
"What deters the enemy from launching an aggression is the resistance's continuous readiness to respond," Nasrallah told scores of supporters. "Northern Israel today is within the range of the resistance's rockets. The ports, bases, factories and everything is within that range."
************
Perhaps the Iranians feel they have enough of a strategic deterrence to negotiate now. But wouldn't that indicate they weren't to confident of their "terrorist card?"
One thing I honestly don't understand re. the "hostile press" argument is this constant accusation of "mobbing." When someone is unpopular, shouldn't one expect to see some negative press about them? Can someone please explain to me how to tell the difference between mobbing and more or less accurate reporting of failures? (Other than an arrogant assumption that one already knows the truth.)
Second, could someone please address the 'free market' argument. If there is a significant bias away from the everage American, then why does it persist? What is it that is keeping the market from correcting?
Finally, what kind of bias are we talking about? I assume it's 'bias' against the truth. I.e., no one thinks it unfair or biased that the AMA doesn't give equal time to Thai faith healers as they do to legitimate medical research. By the same token, 'unbaised reporting' doesn't mean criticize and praise all candidates and policy equally (if it did, then Libretarians and Greens would have the claim to most downtrodden). Don't we want bad policy to be criticized more than praised?
Zane - You can spot mobbing when sane people on the other side of the political aisle say things like "if this wasn't coming from Bush it would be a great idea", something that has been said fairly often about his immigration proposals. That's the very essence of mobbing that what you say doesn't matter. Who you are dooms whatever you say. That's no way to run a country.
Press bias accusations have a very long trail of academic research demonstrating that the press is biased towards the left and is much further to the left than the american people. This shows up in political affiliation of the press, story selection, viewpoint bias, I was looking at groundbreaking studies in the early '80s that conclusively demonstrated it and 20 years later not much has changed besides the addition of Fox forcing some correction in the story selection bias.
Now the question of why does this persist is an interesting one. The moonbat right persists in accusations of conspiracy but there are pretty plausible nonconspiracy explanations that are consistent with the free market. Put simply, press people aren't 100% money motivated. A subculture has developed (put aside how and why for now) that is strongly left-of-center and being a Republican is socially debilitating in that group. I have a friend who lives in Brooklyn who's been told to his face "what's a nice guy like you doing being a Republican" by his in-laws. The attitude that Republicans and conservatives are baby eating knuckle draggers is much more widespread among the left than you might think. An anti-military bias dating from Vietnam is a related problem and that one's so bad that major press outlets like the New York Times have lost the ability to label their pictures properly because they have no veterans in their newsroom. That's just sad.
It's not necessarily a problem with outright falsehoods, though that is certainly there (see the faked national guard records story by CBS for an example). It's a great deal a tribal problem. Conservatives are spoken of as the other, the outsider, the stranger who has to constantly justify his positions and even existence among polite society. It's infuriating and puts the right at a disadvantage unfairly.