BUSH BECOMING INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS PRESIDENT

[Guest guest]

If Past Is Prologue, George Bus

Is Becoming An Increasingly

Dangerous President

By John W. Dean

4-21-6

 

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.

http://rense.com/general70/d2l.htm