Zombie-like recantations vs. resolute critics
Jonathan Chait offers another terrific column today, this time on the tendency of those who betray the president to mysteriously reverse course. The odd thing, though, is that I’m afraid Chait, whom I agree with 99% of the time, is mistaken.
Most presidents have to face betrayal sooner or later. (See John Dean revealing Nixon’s cover-up, or David Stockman revealing the underside of Reagan’s fiscal policies.) What’s uncanny about the Bush administration is that its dissidents invariably recant, usually in zombie-like fashion.
He even offers a pretty compelling list.
* Doug Wead — Doug Wead was presumably aware of the commonly held view that it isn’t very nice to secretly tape-record conversations with your friends and then release those tapes to the New York Times…. Yet somehow Bush, or his allies, managed to make these issues far more compelling to Wead after the fact than they ever had been before. Earlier this week, Wead was proclaiming that he made his tapes of Bush public for the sake of “history.” … [W]ithin a couple days he was desperately backpedaling. On Wednesday, he announced that “I have come to realize that personal relationships are more important than history.” He pledged to direct all book profits to charity and to hand the tapes over to Bush.
* Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) — A former dentist, Norwood had grown infuriated at the callousness of health maintenance organizations and made a patient’s bill of rights his crusade. Bush sought to kill Norwood’s bill by promoting a toothless, industry-friendly alternative. In the spring of 2001, Norwood blasted Bush’s sham bill as worse than the status quo and vowed to “personally exhaust every effort to defeat” Bush’s plan. Then Norwood was summoned to the White House. As one newspaper reported, he “emerged from the hourlong meeting looking haggard” and instantly announced his support for Bush’s bill.
* John DiIulio — In 2002, John DiIulio, the former director of Bush’s faith-based initiative, criticized the administration. “There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm,” he said, fleshing out the critique with damning details. The next day, DiIulio announced that “my criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples. I sincerely apologize and am deeply remorseful.”
This is fairly compelling evidence that Bush allies who cross him suddenly find a horse-head in their bed, causing them to reverse course and submissively pledge allegiance to Bush.
On the other hand, the “Stepford critics” seem to be outnumbered by those who stuck to their guns.
Paul O’Neill, for example, was fired from his post as Treasury Secretary, helped Ron Suskind write a devastating book, and never reversed course. Likewise, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke saw Bush’s failures first hand, went public through the 9/11 Commission, and continues to criticize the president. Rand Beers, Bush’s special assistant to the president for combating terrorism at the National Security Council, resigned in frustration over the president’s negligent attitude about the terrorist threat, went public, and never looked back. Former General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command and Bush’s former hand-picked special envoy to the Middle East, went public with a blistering attack on the administration and its handling of the war in Iraq, but never offered a Rove-written recantation.
In each instance, someone with close contact with Bush saw a misguided White House and felt compelled to come forward with the information they gleaned first-hand. Also in each instance, the White House tried to smear their critics, with varying degrees of success.
But none fall into Chait’s “Stepford” group. It’s proof that it’s more than possible to “betray” the president, stick to your guns, and live to tell the tale. More people should try it.