Blumenthal on Bush

Sidney Blumenthal's weekly columns have been a consistent source of insight to the shortcomings of the Cheney-Bush administration.  A journalist and former Clinton White House staffer, he brings a career of relevant experience to the task.  A collection of his essays has just been published as How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime.

In one recent article, he writes about Bush's Radical Consistency TPM Cafe 09/14/06:

Perhaps another way to approach that question is to examine how Bush’s temperament fuels his radical policies. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously remarked about Franklin D. Roosevelt that he had a “second rate intellect but a first rate temperament.”

Bush has a radical temperament that is apparent in his willful refusal to assess objective evidence that might upset his ideological preconceptions and harsh rejection of pragmatic adjustments. He has an extraordinarily self-defensive resistance to acknowledge error or responsibility. His inability to accept the notion of accountability, indeed, his denial of it, is profoundly rooted and runs through his policies, permeating to the core of his presidency.

... His stubbornness, lack of curiosity, shallow reservoir of knowledge, Manichean division of the world, and contempt for “nuance” are parts of a personality that key members of his administration play upon to get their ways. They carefully restrict the flow of information to him and flatter him as a  great historical figure misunderstood by the mere mortals of his age. ... The will to absolute power almost always has a radical style. Bush’s example is unique, but it also fits the historical pattern.

When questioned about any failures, he retreats into fantasy. “I’m often asked what’s the difference between Iran and Iraq,” he said.  “We tried all diplomatic means in Iraq.”  But, of course, he forced out the United Nations weapons inspectors before they completed their mission of searching for Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction.  Bush had announced his intention to topple Saddam long before the inspectors even began their arduous task.  He was too impatient to get on with shock and awe to let them find outwhether theWMDs were actually there.  Now he insists he did allow them to do so. Is this an example of his principles or his cynicism?  (my emphasis)

In a long Salon article, he provides a good overview of the Cheney-Bush Presidency:  How bad is he? 09/12/06.

The whole thing is worth reading.  One observation I found especially interesting was the notion that Bush's prior career, even through the 2000 campaign, provided no clear hint of how extreme his approach to governing would be.  The first real clue was the notorious Florida vote-counting battle.  And even then most of us didn't realize what it indicated about the approach of the Cheney-Bush team:

Few political commentators at the time thought that the ruthless tactics used by the Bush camp in the Florida contest presaged his presidency.  The battle there was seen as unique, a self-contained episode of high political drama that could and would not be replicated.  Tactics such as setting loose a mob comprised mostly of Republican staff members from the House and Senate flown down from Washington to intimidate physically the Miami-Dade County Board of Supervisors from counting the votes there, and manipulating the Florida state government through the office of the governor, Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother, to forestall vote counting were justified as simply hardball politics.

The Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, by a five to four margin, perversely sanctioned not counting thousands of votes (mostly African-American) as somehow upholding the equal protection clause of the 15th Amendment (enacted after the Civil War to guarantee the rights of newly enfranchised slaves, the ancestors of those disenfranchised by Bush v. Gore).  In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that counting votes would cast a shadow on the "legitimacy" of Bush's claim to the presidency.  The Court concluded that the ruling was to have applicability only this one time. By its very nature, it was declared to be unprecedented. Never before had the Supreme Court decided who would be president, much less according to tortuous argument, and by a one vote margin that underlined and extended political polarization.

The constitutional system had ruptured, but it was widely believed by the political class in Washington, including most of the press corps, that Bush,who had benefited, would rush to repair the breach.  The brutality enabling him to become president, while losing the popular majority, and following a decade of partisan polarization, must spur him to make good on his campaign rhetoric of moderation, seek common ground and enact centrist policies.  Old family retainers, James Baker (the former Secretary of State who had been summoned to command the legal and political teams in Florida) and Brent Scowcroft (elder Bush's former national security adviser), were especially unprepared for what was to come, and they came to oppose Bush's radicalism, mounting a sub rosa opposition.  In its brazen, cold-blooded and single-minded partisanship, the Florida contest turned out in retrospect to be an augury not an aberration.  It was Bush's first opening, and having charged through it, grabbing the presidency, he continued widening the breach.  (my emphasis)