History will not be kind to Condi

COLUMN: “A falling star: Condoleezza Rice is not the woman she once was,” by Lexington, Economist, 20 January 2007, p. 44.

A great examination of how disappointing Rice’s tenure has been, noting that her poor turn at SECSTATE is vastly outweighed by her disastrous turn leading the NSC (“Her fingerprints are on some of the worst mistakes of the first Bush term.”). On that basis, she can be rightfully accused by history of being the Achilles heel of the entire administration, sowing the seeds in Bush I for the tragedy that has become Bush II.

As the piece points out, though, the ultimate blame lies with Bush, who picked her for jobs that demanded a heavyweight when she has turned out to be anything but.

Then Lexington nails her flaws on the head: she was a lifelong protégé who never grew up. From her childhood right through her final tutoring under Scowcroft, whose model of the perfect NSC chief (broker, not herder) sealed her fate, she--just like fellow SECSTATE disaster Colin Powell--“made her career by impressing powerful establishment figures.”

What does being a lifelong protégé get you? A mindset of serving the boss’ needs, keeping one’s place among the adults, and trying to please all while angering none.

What it does not get you is serious leadership skills, at least those at the level required for SECSTATE.

We have paid a huge price for Rice’s poor education, along with Powell’s.

But I will say this about Rice: she lacks Powell’s CYA instincts, and for that alone she deserves far more respect than he.

Still, Rice will go down in history as forging a brilliant and historic career unblemished by lasting accomplishments and visionary leadership.