SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: Alive and well. . . |
    |
|
Who knew ? Former White House counsel John W Dean is "on the case":
__________________________________________
Published on Friday, April 21, 2006 by FindLaw.com
If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous
President
by John Dean
President George W. Bush's presidency is a disaster - one that's still unfolding. In a mid-2004 column, I argued that, at that point, Bush had already demonstrated that he possessed the least attractive and most troubling traits among those that political scientist James Dave Barber has cataloged in his study of Presidents' personality types.
Now, in early 2006, Bush has continued to sink lower in his public approval
ratings, as the result of a series of events that have sapped the public of
confidence in its President, and for which he is directly responsible. This
Administration goes through scandals like a compulsive eater does candy
bars; the wrapper is barely off one before we've moved on to another.
Currently, President Bush is busy reshuffling his staff to reinvigorate his
presidency. But if Dr. Barber's work holds true for this president -- as it
has for others - the hiring and firing of subordinates will not touch the
core problems that have plagued Bush's tenure.
That is because the problems belong to the President - not his staff. And
they are problems that go to character, not to strategy.
Barber's Analysis of Presidential Character
As I discussed in my prior column, Barber, after analyzing all the
presidents through Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, found repeating
patterns of common elements relating to character, worldview, style,
approach to dealing with power, and expectations. Based on these findings,
Barber concluded that presidents fell into clusters of characteristics.
He also found in this data Presidential work patterns which he described as
"active" or "passive." For example, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were
highly active; Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan were highly passive.
Barber further analyzed the emotional relationship of presidents toward
their work - dividing them into presidents who found their work an
emotionally satisfying experience, and thus "positive," and those who found
the job emotionally taxing, and thus "negative." Franklin Roosevelt and
Reagan, for example, were presidents who enjoyed their work; Thomas
Jefferson and Richard Nixon had "negative" feeling toward it.
From these measurements, Barber developed four repeating categories into
which he was able to place all presidents: those like FDR who actively
pursued their work and had positive feelings about their efforts
(active/positives); those like Nixon who actively pursued the job but had
negative feelings about it (active/negatives); those like Reagan who were
passive about the job but enjoyed it (passive/positives); and, finally,
those who followed the pattern of Thomas Jefferson -- who both was passive
and did not enjoy the work (passive/negatives).
Interestingly, the category of presidents who proved troublesome under
Barber's analysis is that of those who turned out to be active/negatives.
Barber placed Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard
Nixon in this class.
In my prior column, I found that the evidence is overwhelming that George
W. Bush is another active/negative president, and the past two years, since
making that initial finding, have only further confirmed my conclusion.
Because active/negative presidencies do not end well, it is instructive to
look at where Bush's may be heading.
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful -
perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong
substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone:
Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.
Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply
told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because "I'm the
decider and I decide what's best." He sounded much like a parent telling
children how things would be: "I'm the Daddy, that's why."
This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view
that will cause him trouble.
Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt
discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the
presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully
pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they
are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to
ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be
equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president
pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.
Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew
his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The
public is the decider.
Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative
presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without
public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have
-- until "nothing [is] left but the shell of the office." Woodrow Wilson,
Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.
Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk
Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position,
they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding
steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.
The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to
their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change
their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to
do at any cost.
Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover
refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a
fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while
misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went
down with his bogus defense of Watergate.
George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using
terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he
refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies
and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.
Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these
positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions
are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone
questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.
And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it
would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most
loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a
campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though
inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he
found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot
absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that
he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his
downfall.
Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to
critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal
about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even
turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to
imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.
The Danger of the "Active/Negative" President Facing A Congressional Rout
Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are
driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is "I
must."
Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits
George W. Bush too: "He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose,
but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end
state he vaguely envisions," Barber writes. He continues, "Battered from
all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . .
. [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he
rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is
necessary, he rides the tiger to the end."
Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make
that clear.
He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group
of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the
risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops
and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be
possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the
criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of
Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he
can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without
hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will
likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's
debts.
What We Can Expect From Bush in the Future, Based on Barber's Model
As the 2006 midterm elections approach, this active/negative president can
be expected to take further risks. If anyone doubts that Bush, Cheney, Rove
and their confidants are planning an "October Surprise" to prevent the
Republicans from losing control of Congress, then he or she has not been
observing this presidency very closely.
What will that surprise be? It's the most closely held secret of the
Administration.
How risky will it be? Bush is a whatever-it-takes risk-taker, the
consequences be damned.
One possibility is that Dick Cheney will resign as Vice President for
"health reasons," and become a senior counselor to the president. And Bush
will name a new vice president - a choice geared to increase his
popularity, as well as someone electable in 2008. It would give his sinking
administration a new face, and new life.
The immensely popular Rudy Giuliani seems the most likely pick, if Giuliani
is willing. (A better option for Giuliani might be to hold off, and tacitly
position himself as the Republican anti-Bush in 2008.) But Condoleezza
Rice, John McCain, Bill Frist, and more are possibilities.
Bush's second and more likely, surprise could be in the area of national
security: If he could achieve a Great Powers coalition (of Russia, China,
the United Kingdom, France, and so on) presenting a united-front "no nukes"
stance to Iran, it would be his first diplomatic coup and a political
triumph.
But more likely, Bush may mount a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear
facilities - hoping to rev up his popularity. (It's a risky strategy: A
unilateral hit on Iran may both trigger devastating Iran-sponsored
terrorist attacks in Iraq, with high death tolls, and increase
international dislike of Bush for his bypass of the U.N. But as an
active/negative President, Bush hardly shies away from risk.) Another
rabbit-out-of-the-hat possibility: the capture of Osama bin Laden.
If there is no "October Surprise," I would be shocked. And if it is not a
high-risk undertaking, it would be a first. Without such a gambit, and the
public always falls for them, Bush is going to lose control of Congress.
Should that happen, his presidency will have effectively ended, and he will
spend the last two years of it defending all the mistakes he has made
during the first six, and covering up the errors of his ways.
There is, however, the possibility of another terrorist attack, and if one
occurred, Americans would again rally around the president - wrongly so,
since this is a presidency that lives on fear-mongering about terror, but
does little to truly address it. The possibility that we might both suffer
an attack, and see a boost to Bush come from it, is truly a terrifying
thought.
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
© 2006 FindLaw.com
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
