Richard Cohen relied on his college psychology lessons today to raise one of my favorite points about Bush’s style.
In the faraway past, I was a psych major in college, and it was then that I discovered the useful word “projection.” It was, as I recall, the tendency to assign to others the attributes or faults you had within yourself. I have in the intervening years moved on to journalism, but I still know projection when I see it. George Bush projects all over the place.
He does so most prominently when he accuses John Kerry of endangering Americans at home and, most important, troops overseas by engaging, as a presidential candidate should, in criticism of the current administration. Recently Bush set the tone for his administration and the more opportunistic members of the GOP by saying that Kerry’s criticisms of the war in Iraq “can embolden the enemy.” It goes without saying that emboldening the enemy is dangerous to our troops. It is very close to treason.
Bush has endangered Americans’ lives, so naturally, he has to accuse Kerry of endangering Americans’ lives. Cohen thinks this is driven by a guilty conscience…
The president must, in some nagging way like a mild itch, recognize that it is his mistakes — not Kerry’s language — that have cost American lives. In Bush’s case, projection is both understandable and Shakespearean. In the words of Hamlet’s guilt-ridden mother, he “doth protest too much.”
…but I’m not so sure. I think it’s far more likely that it’s a misdirection strategy. Ignore my faults, Bush says, because Kerry is the one to whom they really apply.
But to add to Cohen’s point, I’ve noticed that Bush has been “projecting” for quite a while.
Last month, for example, Bush lashed out at Kerry for opposing an ineffective, overly expensive, and unworkable missile defense shield that has no bearing on the war on terrorism. Bush insisted that Kerry and others like him “really don’t understand the threats of the 21st century. They’re living in the past.”
It was classic projection. Bush used Cold War mentality to address an old threat, so he accuses his opponents of living in the past, in essence, accusing his political opponents of having his faults.
The same thing happened in March when Bush accused Kerry of opposing “higher combat pay” and “better health care for reservists and their families.” The reality was the opposite. It was the Bush administration who opposed higher combat pay, not Kerry, just as it was the Bush administration who rejected TRICARE, the system that offers reservists the same health care benefits as active-duty soldiers. Once again, Bush seemed to be aware of his own faults, but instead of owning up to them, he simply attributed them to Kerry, facts be damned.
The classic Bush projecting example was last summer’s favorite Bush catch phrase — “revisionist history.”
“There’s going to be a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that, but I am absolutely confident in the decision I made.”
But, again, it was Bush who was trying to re-write history, changing his own rationale for an unneccessary invasion against a country that wasn’t a threat, hoping we wouldn’t notice the difference. The only revisionist historian on the scene was Bush, so Bush naturally lashed out by accusing his critics of having his faults.
I’m not trying to put Bush on the couch here, but the president seems to have a problem acknowledging his mistakes and flaws. Worse, when he does acknowledge them, he immediately attributes them to others, instead of accepting responsibility. It’s a sign, I’m afraid, of a man with a weak character.