Any effective CEO must have the capacity to distinguish quality performance from public relations, and must have the capacity to adapt.
When I think of George W. Bush I am reminded of a comment made about a character in John Gardner's remarkable book, The Sunlight Dialogues: "His greatest virtue was tenacity, especially when the idea he was clinging to was wrong."
The very traits that once defined the man for his avid supporters – his persistence, his courage, his refusal to budge on certain issues – now have resulted in his being abandoned on many fronts as he has led his party to short-term ruin. And it’s not as if no one saw it coming.
— Dick Morris, who once compared Bush to Churchill, only a few weeks ago called Bush one of the least imaginative presidents in history.
– Jeffrey Hart of National Review has called him one of the worst presidents in history – possibly the worst.
– Bill Buckley has suggested that the President, in a parliamentary system, would have been turned out of power (for what it’s worth, he just was for all intents and purposes).
– Andrew Sullivan, one-time advocate of the Iraq war, has called the Bush administration completely inept.
– Richard Perle, one of the conceptual architects of the Iraq war, has in recent weeks joined the chorus of naysayers.
Understand, of course, that all of this came on top of six years of the Left and the Democrats, including their minions at most of the major networks, beating on the President pretty much non-stop, often maliciously and mendaciously. The President has charged on, almost oblivious to the cosmic political forces at work both in this country and in Iraq, at least until the evening of the election, when his string of remarkable political victories came to an abrupt end.
Sadly, it was avoidable – very much so. Almost two years ago I suggested that the President needed to bring a new team to Washington. The architects of the Iraq invasion and post-war chaos here and there should have been asked to step aside. This would have included Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, not to mention others who have since departed, such as Tom Ridge, Paul Wolfowitz and George Tenet.
Bush not only failed to remove Rice and Rumsfeld, he exalted them in the face of all bitter realities on the ground. Those who have moved on did so of their own volition; consequently the President gained nothing politically by their departures because he failed to invest meaning in their leaving.
The decisive exercise of power at critical moments is an ingredient of strong leadership. That doesn’t mean a president should dismiss people cavalierly but he should evaluate performance based on objective results. In Iraq today, we have more attacks occurring daily, and more people dying, than at any time since American troops toppled the statue of Saddam over three years ago. The situation has been unraveling for more than two years.
Of course, there were other issues at play in the election results. For all the attempts to assign a comprehensive explanation for the Democratic Party's good showing, certainly six years into any presidency, the out party is likely to make a move. The Iraq war may be the critical factor, but then how to explain Joe Lieberman's strong showing?
It is common knowledge that other issues — including conservative disaffection with a big spending sitting president, an immigration issue falsely stirred up by the far right and the failure of House Republicans to police their own party members (read Foley) — conspired to give the legislative branch back to the Democrats.
But ultimately the President bears great responsibility. Much as I admire his personal character and courage, he is in the business of politics. And in politics, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. More than a year ago, the President should have publicly launched a major initiative to convene an international summit on how to support positive change in the Middle East and in the Islamic world. He should have announced a Marshall plan of his own – the Powell plan, if you like, in which the international community was rallied to invest in the future of those who are now the recruits of terrorists. He should have made a fuss about starting over, bringing in new stars. Joe Lieberman would have made a heck of a Secretary of State, Sam Nunn a great homeland security Czar, and if not Nunn perhaps Norman Swartzkopf. He could have brought in creative thinkers to discuss immigration and energy policy.
In politics, gesture is not only important, it is at times essential. There is a reason why we often get misty-eyed during inaugurals, elections and state of the unions (if we have not fallen asleep.) These rites are symbols of our democracy and our collective futures. Likewise, a president must exercise power with the power of perception in mind. Bush is a good, tough campaigner, but his approach to governance left too much to chance. Whereas Reagan’s team might have over scripted and managed him, Bush and Cheney have treated their nation as a giant corporation in which jobs are delegated and left to others. But any effective CEO must have the capacity to distinguish quality performance from public relations, and must have the capacity to adapt.
I would be careful, however, in suggesting that the Republicans or the President are finished. Politics is a strange creature and any Republican who can take Bush's moral courage and fuse it with a dynamic strategy may yet take the White House in 2008 and enable conservatives to retake the House.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Read more articles by George Shadroui
Granted, President Bush has made mistakes. Worst President of all time. Hardly. Anyone heard of Herbert Hoover or Calvin Coolidge or Rutherford B. Hayes? Considering the world stage that President Bush has had to deal with during his presidency, how could anyone of any intelligence make that assertion. I also do not recall any incident where some young woman had crawled under his desk at the White House and performed oral sex on the President. Of course, we all know that could never happen unless it included President Clinton. Remember him? He could not carry the jock strap of Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson. Why this rush to judgement of President Bush? Does anyone really think the world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein still in power? We have a decent man as our President. No one is perfect. Of course, all of the left wing ultra liberals would rail that they could govern better. Sure - I would be a better Santa Claus too. Ridiculous? Absolutely - just like many of the idiots in Congress that claim to be "Conservative Democrats". Go ahead Democrats - put Ms Hillary or Kerry (what a joke he is) or Kennedy (an ever bigger joke) or "Osaka Bulaca Calaca Boomerang" the ?honorable? Senator from Illinois, in as your next President. I think most Americans will be horrified with the results. What now for Bush? Two years of listening to the carping Democrats on what's best for America. Point of fact President Bush - They, the Democrats, have no clue. My advice - plug up your ears and once back at Crawford, Texas give them a one finger wave.
Comment by Leefennessy | November 10, 2006
I don't disagree with you that the Democrats are clueless, but I am trying to make sense of the election results of this past Tuesday, and also the situation in Iraq.
I would say this: it has to be conceded that the president has faced unprecedented difficulties. Had he not gone into Iraq, and had Saddam managed to fuel terrorism at our expense, Democrats would have been the first to call for his impeachment. As I have said on many occasions on this site, the war was a tough call but I supported it for the same reason many Democrats did. But, those responsible for the war are charged with appreciating the operational and polilitical complexities the rest of us might not totally comprehend. War is always disastrous to one degree or another. Bush and his team should have been sure that 1. Turkey blocking our entrance from the north was not a major problem (turns out it was); that securing borders quickly and decisively was critical (it didn't happen); that Shiite support would be solidified in the south to protect the border on the other side (it didn't happen); an Iraqi military force, bought and paid for if necessary, was ready to handle the Sunni triangle where Saddam loyalists were most intransigent; that we had intelligence on the ground about where major weapons stockpiles were. Without this game plan, the invasion was doomed to become what it is now - a very difficult, deadly and in many ways counterproductive operation. In short, we should have waited while keeping military and economic pressure on Saddam. Katrina is another example. I don't blame the president for the worst natural disaster in our country's history. I do find it befuddling why he did not appreciate the gravity of the situation and immediately assert his authority in a public and commanding way.
All of that said, the media is so anti-Bush administration that they could walk on water and the media would interview boat owners registering their complaints. I undertand that. That is why I have supported the president. But I and otehrs also have tried to offer ideas and advice in the hopes that somehow our small voices would get heard where it mattered. Worst president ever. I agree with you that Jeffrey Hart, a writer I admire, went way to far in that comment. Don't be bitter. Waving the finger might feel good, but it is not a substitute for engaged and energetic debate of the ideas we value.
Comment by George Shadroui | November 11, 2006