The Judger-In-Chief
Much has been said over the past six or seven years about George W. Bush and his own personal style--his manner of speaking, his manner of acting, his approach to others. The image that the Republican Party--and perhaps Bush himself--likes to portray the most is that of the plain-talking, cut-through-the-BS, look-you-straight-in-the-eye, old school leader. Over that same period of time, a number of others have tried to figure out if that persona is indeed true, and whether its a good or a bad thing.
What I'd like to focus for a few paragraphs is one aspect of Bush's personna--his ability to accurately judge people. Bush was famously quoted as saying about Russian President Putin, "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul." Bush was very positive about his relationship with Putin at the time, saying he was a good man worthy of leading Russia. Last week's prickly press conference exchange with Putin, where Putin said, right next to Bush, that Russia certainly didn't want an Iraq-style democracy, had to sting Bush. (Not to mention Putin's pushing Russia back towards dictatorship.)
During the same trip to St. Petersburg, Bush seemed to take is warm relationship with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, a bit too far. With cameras and a number of other world leaders in a conference room, Bush came up behind Merkel to give her a surprise neck rub. Her startled expression was caught for the world to see, though it hasn't gotten all that much press attention.
While many have questioned what would have been the press reaction if Clinton had made such an advance, what bothers me more is Bush's judgement. He must have thought that Merkel would have wanted or appreciated such contact, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did. He clearly had read his relationship with her wrong--the same way he appears to have read his relationship with Putin wrong.
There are other examples where Bush's judgement of individuals seems a bit suspect. Hiring criminals in David Safavian and Claude Allen. Nominating Bernard Kerik. Being close friends with Ken Lay. My mother still says "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are." By this measure, Bush comes up lacking.
I haven't even gotten into the judgement of situations--I'm willing to give a bit of a pass there, since many people are involved in the evaluation and response to a situation, even though the buck still stops with the President.
But he was indeed elected President, and will be President for two more years. But it makes me increasingly uncomfortable--and my comfort level wasn't real high to begin with--as we look to him to accurately judge individuals and situations in a world that seems to be growing messier and messier by the minute.
posted by pbryon @ 10:28 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
This conveys a good sense of Bush’s leadership-style and could certainly be fleshed out by numerous examples from Ron Suskind’s two books. Bush judges individuals intuitively rather than cognitively. He looks at how people are saying what they say to him rather than listens to what they are actually saying. As Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink exhausively points out, it is good that a leader possesses some intuitive ability to size up others and judge situations. But, the problem for Bush is that that the intuitive sense (if he even has that…I’m not convinced given his record) is all that he has. He is the least thoughtful and curious president that we have ever had. This was clear to everyone from the beginning and that was the best reason to vote against him in 2000.
To tie this together, I even think that the Merkl massage grew out of this. I see this as an act of someone who is extremely bored. I’m sure that the G-8 discussion bored Bush out of his skull. Given the world situation, we should be very concerned that we have a president who is bored by the discussion of the world’s other seven most powerful leaders.
Feh. I see the whole "Bush as straight-shooting regular guy" schtick as entirely concocted. The guy had to have some redeeming quality ascribed to him, and whatever that quality was had to be something that couldn't be immediately shot out of the water by looking at his record or listening to him talk. So what could it be? Smarts? Achievements? Service to country? I think not. Ergo, you're left with some nebulous, unquantifiable trait that people can relate to in the abstract, but will never have the opportunity to test for themselves.
I agree with all that's been said here about our simpleton President. I also think about how much he fully realized the commitment in running in 2000 -- it's an 8 year commitment and something you can't fully grasp until you've been in it for a year or more. Certainly the luster of being President is long gone and the pressure of a job he's not up for has been wearing on him for sometime. I don't think anyone imagined the array of disasters that could be at hand all at one time. If anyone saw the Larry King interview a few weeks back with George & Laura it showed how little he has left in the tank (Laura was pretty together as usual). He seems to still fantasize about the long-run and how he'll be judged in history.... the Truman comparisons are mind boggling.
That's a good point tcox about the Bush-Truman comparisons. The facile reason that the Bush administration and its supporters make this comparison is that Truman was unpopular in his time, but that he later, in history, came to be seen as a near-great president. They say that this will happen to to Bush in the face of the judgment of history.
The comparison, however, is completely inapt. Truman was unpopular largely because of the waging of the Korean War so soon after WW2. America was war-fatigued and there was still a powerful isolationist movement in America as represtented by Robert Taft (a position that today is only espoused by Pat Buchanan in the mainstream). Truman pursued unpopular initiatives like the Marshall Plan, NATO, and American participation in the UN in direct contrast to America's isolationism and, in so doing, he eventually succeeded in killing isolationism in America. He pursued his strategy based on a principled argument about internationally- supported containment that, eventually, Americans rightly and eventually came to accept.
What Bush lacks is this principled argument. He and the members of his administration are incapable of making any principled argument that can survive even the slightest scrutiny. This is why the administration has waged its campaigns merely on the basis of emotion. In this sense, Bush is the first pure demagogue that this country has ever had as president.
If I might chime in here, as an outsider and a fan of Bush, he's hardly the first to potentially misjudge foreign leaders. Remember that great deal Clinton got with the help of Carter in North Korea? No need to moniter that treaty, Kim can be trusted; let's send Madeline Albright there to witness a military parade where the marchers form a missile, and have her dance a waltz with the dear leader.
Did it ever occur to anyone that this is an inherent weakness to diplomacy? It is human nature to believe people when they say their interests are aligned with yours, which makes telling lies of that nature very easy. Say this for Bush, at least, his misjudgment of Russia never led him to capitulate American interests to appease them; he got out of a dated ABM treaty with them despite his seeming personal regard for Putin, and much to the surpise of the Western press, Russia barely squalked. Maybe he's stupid like a fox.
Post a Comment
<< Home