Pop Politico: “So Long To The C- Student”

Watching President Bush’s final press conference yesterday reminded me of the phrase “failing upward.” Never in recent (and not-so-recent) history have we had a president so thoroughly unqualified for the job.  Many sneered at Ronald Reagan because of his acting background, but few would deny that serving seven years as president of his union (Screen Actors Guild) introduced him to the art of politics in ways that would help him as governor of California, and then as president.

With George W. Bush, however, I get the sense that he went into the family business of politics because, well, there was nothing left to do.  He had already run his business into the ground and had proven that he was not the most adroit person at heading up a baseball team, but, to his credit, he had succeeded in one thing: becoming an alcoholic.

What Karl Rove saw in George W. Bush I’ll never know.  Perhaps it was Bush’s old money insouciance that impressed the intellectually rich but monetarily poor Rove.  Perhaps it was the idea that he had found a guy who had a high “EQ Factor” with the masses, but was fine being a sock puppet when it came to day-to-day decisions. Maybe it was his frat boy belief that he could do anything to anyone and get away with it that made him perfect for Rove’s Machiavellian designs.  It’s difficult to know, since Turd Blossom and Dubya don’t really talk about their relationship. But watching and experiencing the last eight years of the Bush Administration, it’s clear Bush and his team were in awe of radical transformation. However, the fountainhead of that radical vision wasn’t Bush — and therein lay the problem.  Bush was surrounded with radicals but, if pushed, was really interested in the status quo of the country club set.  His intellectually incurious mind, his inability to form coherent sentences, his failure at grasping the complexities of political events and exerting an artful diplomacy when needed reinforced that even Bush’s puppet masters couldn’t get the dummy to convincingly act the part.

Even as he stumbled his way through his final press conference, trying in vain to promote his successes (i.e., “In the first 24 hours after Katrina we airlifted 30,000 people out of there.”), and demonstrating that he could buck his free market ideological conditioning by supporting government bailouts for the financial sector, when asked about mistakes made during his presidency, he was quick to point out that the “Mission Accomplished” sign on the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 was a big mistake.  Why?  Well, it sent the “wrong message” when his administration was trying to convey “something differently” by sending that message, but people got the wrong message.  Ah, now that was a classic Bush moment — and something I suppose I’ll miss from our departing leader: non-sequiturs.

But even as I try and unpack the deeper meaning behind Bush’s admission that he made mistakes, I couldn’t help but notice that the “mistakes” he was referring to were P.R. mistakes.  If that damn sign wasn’t there on the aircraft carrier … if he’d landed Air Force One in Baton Rouge, the press would complain that his presence would take away law enforcement from helping the public to safety … Abu Ghraib was a “disappointment” … not finding WMDs in Iraq was a “disappointment” … trying to reform Social Security was a mistake, but only because he didn’t address immigration to dispel the view that the GOP is the party of resentful white males.

For his last hurrah in front of the press — and one where he could be as unguarded as he wanted — Bush displayed plenty of what has made him such a frustrating public figure (i.e., being mostly vague, often vacuous, rarely enlightening, and prone to annoyance).  As I cringed through his last press conference, it was clear that the man-child who became president of a radical group of right-wingers never really drank the Kool-Aid of the movement’s ideology.  The most horrendous things could happen on his watch (i.e., wars, rendition, torture, erosion of civil liberties, financial collapse), but because this guy was obviously wrapped in cotton for the last eight years, he couldn’t be bothered by it all. “Let history be the judge” was his recurring defense — which was probably the most politically telling thing about our 43rd president.  In other words, it’s Bush’s public image that concerns him the most.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • When Bush arrived, I was full of hope, because it was a "change" from the prevaricator-in-chief who preceded him. I see now the foolishness of that hope. He was a politician. His lips were moving. Enough said. I'd still take him over Gore or Kerry any day of the week, in any crisis. In that, I am unrepentant. I am angry most of all at the political machines who serve up to us such poor choices. However, at least the newly reconstituted Clinton administration (under its new African-American figurehead) can claim a lot of experience. Experience in passing much of the legislation and regulation that brought us to the economic fiasco we now find ourselves in. So, like everyone else, I can only hope they do better. But if Obama were really "intellectually curious," he'd be asking questions about the Austrian school of economics. Right now it seems to be a battle between the dim-bulb monetarists and the dim-bulb Keynesians, both of whom failed to anticipate financial implosion. And honestly now, don't you find Obama "mostly vague" too? He's so vague, I agree with half of what he says!
  • Ted
    Good to have you back in the fray!

    Perhaps Obama has studied the more libertarian economists of the Austrian School but found they don't address the kind of policy prescriptions that need to be enacted for the economy to recover from the mess we're in.

    And I'm not sure what polices Bill Clinton supported that has a correlation to what we're going through now. It's almost like you forget who was the president for the last eight years.
  • The salient point is that if the Clinton era was so warped, why didn't George W. Bush in his eight years attempt to straighten it out, rather than going for the shingles that were still somewhat straight?

    Bringing this back to Clinton doesn't excuse Bush's actions of the past two terms. It just doesn't.
  • standing_damaged
    I have never understood the absolute Republican rage against Clinton, their most effective moderate Republican President since Eisenhower....

    Unless of coure it is the fatc that he made Poppys procorporate greed is good lies palatable to people that LOATHED poppy himself. And it's obvious that to all the BFEE 'image' was their drive.

    As for being unrepentant about voting for him - more power to yah. It is a hard thing to admit one was fooled by a complete idiot. I mean look where that reflects back :P

    As for Obama? Hell us natives lives were shit before, they will be shit now, things don't change for peasants. The best one can say about bein ampong the invisibles is we have learned to live IN the cracks since falling thru happened so damn long ago.

    SD
  • It was actually the Bush administration that brought us to the current economic and socio-political crisis we find ourselves in...the last 8 years of self-serving politics which did this to the country we all love. To try to blame Clinton's administration--an administration that managed to eliminate our national debt for the first time in decades--is retroactively writing history. It's also too early into Obama's victory to begin criticizing him for not looking into the Austrian school of economics, when he has no rightful say in running the country until later this month. In other words, "there can only be one President at a time."
  • d Shea
    What's your next headline: Welcome to the A Student?, Welcome to the B Student, C+ ??? Ooops, that will require some research, college records don't seem to be available. You do realize that Obama's public image concerns him don't you?
  • Ted
    Of course Obama is concerned about his public image. What elected official isn't? The difference is that Obama is a guy who has shown himself to be engaged in the day-to-day of governing, while Bush has demonstrated the opposite.

    Right now, the dead enders of the Bush cult are pushing the line: "Well, he kept the country safe after 9/11." Okay, but wasn't that his job before we were attacked? The country is attacked on his watch, thousands die, our country gets mired in two wars, civil liberties are eroded, and on and on and on, yet Bush gets a mulligan?
blog comments powered by Disqus