Bush's post-presidency means we all move on
Sunday, April 1, 2007 at 3:30PM It's gets a bit much when every other post or column gets interpreted as some grubby plea for attention from Dem candidates.
And it's even more laughable considering my only F2Fs have been on the Republican side!
Seriously, my expectations have always been that no Dem president could stand much of what I argue for and that only a centrist Republican (much like my man Steve) would find me palatable.
People are misinterpreting my praise for the Dems tying Bush's hands. I expect the Dems to be what they are: the opposition. I do not expect them to come up with better plans. That's not how our system works or has ever really worked. I expect Bush to come up with a better plan on the basis on the effective resistance from the opposition. I don't expect Congress to determine U.S. foreign policy.
What's so frustrating right now is that Bush was told by the Iraq Study Group what the logical way ahead should look like, and despite the showy bits here and there, he's continued to blow off their recommendations completely. I find that deeply troubling after the beating he took in the midterms, especially since the GOP hierarchy stacked the ISG deck just to make it easier.
So despite all the domestic resistance (average people are not stupid, they just know a losing hand when they see one) and the manufactured "out," Bush basically soldiers on, losing more allies along the way.
I just don't see that as sustainable. I think it puts everything good Bush has done at risk by making his entire time in office seem like an out-of-control experience (Clinton's foreign policy looks positively logical in comparison, and he used the military a huge amount, surpassed only by Bush in the last several decades).
I think that if public and the Dem opposition don't make it clear that they want Bush to fix what he's broken (Iraq) before moving on to new targets (Iran) that Bush and Cheney would move to conflate one disaster with another, and that that second disaster would achieve a tipping point globally that the first one could not--in large part because it would be viewed as America fundamentally out of control instead of playing "control" (in a gaming sense) to the global security wargame that is the Long War. Bush the Father gave off that vibe, and frankly, so did Clinton. Bush the Younger does not, and that is dangerous. As I wrote in PNM, sometimes America is called upon by history to change the rules, but that bold stroke needs to be followed by something more than just further idiosyncratic behavior. Done right, like Bush the Elder kicking Saddam out of Kuwait (unfortunately, not finishing the job), the demonstration effect can be huge (inter-state war of the classic land-grab style basically goes away. Done with a system-level appreciation, like Clinton and Co. did in the Balkans, we can give the world a huge glimpse of the necessary rule set (my A-to-Z rule set on processing politically bankrupt states is basically born from that experience). Bush the Younger likewise signaled a sense of history with his arguments for reshaping the Middle East with Saddam's toppling, but as I have argued many times, then the strategic imagination stalled. Kerry could not have done worse. I'm not sure anybody could have done worse. That's why history will judge Bush the Younger's re-election as a real disaster. Bushes are apparently good for just one term (although I have real hopes for Jeb, the one Bush who probably does have what it takes to be a good, full-service president).
So yeah, I do hope things will temporize as much as possible and that little will change between now and Jan 2009. I think anyone other than McCain who gets elected will represent a sea change and offer America a host of new opportunities to right our foreign policy quite rapidly, and I look forward to that.
But I don't write to attract that sort of attention, because I don't want that kind of job. Getting sucked back into the DC bureaucracy where your fab title really boils down to managing a whopping two or three big existing programs where you get to turn a few dials during your time . . . I interact with those people all the time and have for years, and I don't want that job.
As for trailing the great man in some White House position, I just don't have the ego for that, nor the mindset.
Having me around all the time isn't a good idea--for me or the person in question. I just don't function well in situations like that, and so nobody uses me like that--not even Steve.
So please, let's stay on topic. There's definitely a strain of people who liked me and my stuff much better when I approved of Bush's choices more, and there's definitely a strain of people who like me and my stuff much better when I disapprove of Bush's choices more now.
But for someone who's on his third presidency as a professional in this business, I'm not particularly surprised that this president wears out his welcome near the end. They all do. The guys who got them elected tend to bail about 2-3 years in, that's just the nature of the grind. Then they get people who are less connected to what got the person elected in the first place, and coordination tends to suffer. Near the end, it comes off as every man for himself, and so the criticism gets a whole lot easier because the performance tends to get a whole lot worse.
I can't cite blog entries from late Clinton or late 41 because I didn't keep all those memos and emails, so this blog gets to see this sort of stuff from me for the first time. Unpatriotic to some because we're at "war," except I don't view it that way, meaning neither unpatriotic nor really at war. That's why I spend a lot of time giving talks on trying to disaggregate war from peace, and why I argue so much for a rules perspective in this blog.
Then there's just the personal reality that I'm gearing up for another book, and the rejectionist in one's self naturally emerges in this time ("They're all wrong and thus I MUST write this book!").
Then there's just the larger reality that we're all moving on beyond Bush much earlier than anticipated, as his second term has seen him become as authority-crippled as Nixon near the end or Carter near the end.
But my optimism in the future suffers no drop due to Bush's plight. I live in the greatest country in the world, during this planet's best, deepest, and most sustained economic boom in history. But because I know what this country is capable of when our leadership in admired (like Clinton was globally), I prefer to anticipate that resumption of history in about 20 months more than to spend my days defending people and choices I no longer think represent the best we can muster.
So I'll take obstructionism for now and do my best to prepare my usual audience for the possibilities that lie ahead.
And no, I don't want to work for any commands either. I like interacting with them all.
Reader Comments (12)
No one has ever had a good second term. Not even George Washington. Look at the whole history. Second terms are always terrible. There is not one counter-example. The British have a better system for picking the executive, which is more responsive to changing conditions and to serious political or military failure. But we have the Constitution we have so we carry on with it.
Hi Tom,
Unlike yourself, I am a conservative-libertarian Republican. Not 100 % of the time but certainly 95 % of my ballots were cast for the GOP, except when I could not abide the Republican candidate because he was a complete fool or a contemptible crook or both ( case in point: former Gov. George Ryan).
I despair however, of the lack of an effective, worldly, realist, foreign policy/defense/intel cadre of statesmen on the Democratic side. A modern Nitze/Acheson/Kennan cadre would have kept Bush II more focused, responsible and on their game. Instead we have Democratic elder statesmen like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sam Nunn being considered " too conservative" for appointment by the DailyKOS and Moveon.org brand of highly ideological, exceptionally vindictive, goofs who dominate the Democratic primaries.
The ISG was pretty high handed. As a result the media played it as a group of old men lecturing the Boy President. They practically left GWB no choice but to blow them off.
That was too bad, because you're right that the ISG report had much to recommend. But the fact that Baker-Hamilton did this in public almost guanrateed the three-ring media circus that surrounded the release of the report.
Maybe he honestly thinks their "logical way ahead" amounts to surrendering to the forces of disconnectedness?
Hence my desire to pen Vol. III. I feel it is imperative, and probably the most important thing I will do with my life.
Sunday was Palm Sunday and the message was about Jesus' entry into Jerusalem for Passover as expected. What I heard that I hadn't expected was a bit of background on how Jesus' message was different from the perception of truth existant at the time. The Ceasar, a man believing in his own divinty, proclaimed after he defeated Egypt that the path to peace was; peity, war, victory and then peace. A peace enforced by the victor upon all who were crushd by the stronger military power.
Jesus' four word message was, forgive, reconcile, understand and peace.
The military, congressional, industrial complex seeks to follow Cesar's mode of imposing peace because it profits them.Jesus told believers that The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, that we are all divine children of God contaminated by wrong thinking about what is truly valuable in this life. Seek you the Kingdom was not about globalization of economics because to chase the coin of the relam is a waste of time when the reaper arrives.
The Corporate dominated sponsors of Republicans have a return to pre 1800 Old English lords and ladies (keep those ladies in their place) as a goal while they make every effort to walmartize the world labor pool. This fact, to me, makes supporting Republican philosophies anti-Christ in flavor regardless of how devout the politician. The most devout anti-Christ and/or hypocritical thinking are the Religions intent of keeping women in their subservient place. These same people are interested in reaching into our individual rights and forcing their perceptions of truth on all of us. A more arrogant population can not be found in all of humankind, regardless of birth, education, national origin or economics.I would much rather make love to a woman who loves me than one KEPT in her place. Pre 1900 thinking should be trashed instead of held up as prue virtue.The poor and suffering need NOT always be with us unless we over value our superiority to the less fortunate.
Fred Thompson. Minted during Nixon years, conservative yet media-savvy. Has 85%+ with ACU, yet not seen as beholden to hard-partisan forces. No speech impediments. Worked a China policy group recently. You get the idea.
He feels like Nixon's credibility, Reagan's stateman/showmanship, Clinton's media-savvy, Bush 41's rolodex and no Carter/Bush II myopia.
What's the word on Fred from you guys that watch this daily??
By the way I have also chafed at Dr. Barnett's inclusion of political analysis, but not because of what he says...just feel sometimes the current political climate is beneath visionary discussion.
But, the maybe rule of thought-leadership is to follow your interests wherever they lead.
He must be conversant with history and geo-politics. He must have the ability to prioritize his thinking. He must be a shrewd judge of men. He must understand the military and know how to get the most out of his flag officers. And he must be , deep down, a person of incredible courage and resolve. Nothing demands more from a person than the decision to send men and women into harm's way. It requires nerves of steel.
I do not look at his positions on social or domestic issues. They seem to loom large in many people's minds, but to me they are issues that are primarily meant to be dealt with by Congress and the States' legislatures. If he holds ideas similar to mine that is a plus, but not absolutely necessary.
So, every speech I hear, every debate I watch, every position paper I read, every background article I read, I am asking myself one thing. Does this man have the qualities to be a successful Commander-in-Chief. Nothing else really matters.
That is one of the unfortunate things about our system. The parties tend to nominate people based on their domestic politics and how they will advance the party's philosophy. It is a real weakness in our system and could lead to our eventual demise.
Many, including Thomas, don't look at the Islamic Fundamentalists as an existential threat. I do and so do many in the Bush administration. An honest difference of opinion, but an important one as well.