The Washington Post’s interview with Bush, published yesterday, is a treasure trove of riches. There are enough bizarre remarks, contradictory claims, and factual errors to keep the blogosphere well-fed for weeks.
But the one exchange that summed up so many of the president’s flaws was his twisted belief that his Election Day victory validated his appalling policy for Iraq.
President Bush said the public’s decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
“We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections,” Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. “The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.”
There was no indication the president was kidding.
Unfortunately, such a perspective is consistent with everything we already Bush’s worldview, but that doesn’t make it any less painful. Bush honestly believes that his victory is a prima facie endorsement of every decision he’s ever made.
The reality is, of course, that even Bush’s most ardent supporters voted for him despite of his Iraq debacle, not because of it. (Even now, multiple polls show that most Americans, by fairly wide margins, continue to disapprove of his handling of the war.) The fact that the president believes the opposite says a great deal about his capacity for self-delusion.
But I was particularly struck by Bush’s choice of the phrase “accountability moment.”
For most of us, the idea of holding our elected officials accountable for their decisions is an ongoing process. Voters expect leaders to be responsible for what they do in office, for as long as they’re in office. In an effective political system, accountability never ends.
Bush, meanwhile, appears to believe that he merely had to deal with an accountability “moment.” The moment passed, a very slim majority expressed their tolerance for him over his rival, which he had spent the better part of a year smearing, and the president came out on top. The result, as he sees it, is a sweeping confirmation, which clearly is not the case.
Ed Kilgore explained very well how the very idea of an “accountability moment” is at odds with a president who touts the importance of responsibility.
Aside from the fact that Bush would have lost badly had the entire election been about his Iraq policies, this idea that an electoral win provides some sort of plenary indulgence for every mistake made in the past, present and future is really scary. Unless I missed something, the presidential election was a choice between two candidates, not some sort of referendum on whether to endow the incumbent with retroactive and prospective infallibility. For every president, every moment in office should be an “accountability moment” when it comes to the impact of administration policies and actions, especially when they are fraught with the kind of life and death consequences associated with a war.
Exactly. By Bush’s logic, he no longer has to concern himself with being held accountable because he will never again seek elected office. He’ll have four more years to do as he pleases as the nation’s chief executive, but his “accountability moments” are behind him.
Bush’s thoughts on this point to the most troubling aspect of the next four years. It’s not just the radical policy agenda, though that is disconcerting enough; it’s the notion within the White House that Bush’s historically-narrow victory is a national endorsement of every mistake the president made in his first term.
After all of his failures, Bush believes his success on Election Day was not an instance of dodging the proverbial bullet; it was a celebration of those failures and a request for more.
Before the election, David Greenberg warned of just a consequence.
Fifteen years ago, conservatives put forth the “broken windows” theory of crime. If small street crimes are tolerated, the theory went, neighborhoods begin to accept them as normal and the result is more lawlessness. The same thing will happen if a democracy tolerates Bush’s ruthless behavior as business as usual. If voters validate this modus operandi, it won’t just accelerate; it will cease to draw even the modest level of scrutiny and outrage that the administration’s transgressions have attracted so far. Failing to protest these breaches of the norms that govern political conduct will encourage more such violations.
The worst part is, Bush obviously agrees.