Ron Suskind raised a point the other day in a New York Times op-ed that I wanted to follow up on.
The president chose Bernard Kerik to lead the Department of Homeland Security because he was “a good man,” an intangible, gut-check standard that the president also applies to judicial nominees and world leaders.
I think that’s absolutely true. One recent report explained in great detail that the president met Kerik, decided on the spot that he liked him, and that this initial meeting effectively ended the vetting process. Bush, as we know, relies on his “gut” far more than facts, so the man with poor instincts was satisfied with the conclusion that this incompetent criminal should head the Department of Homeland Security. As far as the president was concerned, he’s “a good man.” No other information was needed; no other standard need be met.
The fun part, however, is seeing how often he relies on this silly little phrase as a standard for qualification. Suskind noted that Bush uses the “good man” standard to size-up would-be judges and foreign heads of state, but the amusing thing is realizing that the president uses the same phrase to describe just about every man for which he has any fondness at all.
This link shows that Bush refers to almost everyone as “a good man.” The president relies on the line so often, he’s used it, on average, about seven times a month throughout his first term.
Maybe we should chip in and get the guy a thesaurus?
Just three months after his inauguration, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s David Goldstein first noticed the constant repetition of the phrase.
Looking for a few good men? President Bush has found enough lately to fill a small army.
“He’s a good man,” the President declared last month at an appearance with his brother Jeb, Florida’s governor. So is Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.
“Brazil is a vast nation,” Bush said after their meeting. “It’s a government run by a good man.”
The two-syllable phrase of praise, popular with preppies and good ol’ boys alike, is the President’s signature salute, liberally bestowed.
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, often a pebble in the presidential shoe, is a “good man.” So are Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist, former Montana Gov. Mark Racicot, and Massachusetts Rep. Joe Moakley, a popular and gravely ill Democrat.
And that was just in the last few weeks.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, and Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi all won “good man” standing when Bush introduced them as his nominees.
It actually suits Bush perfectly. He’s a simple person with a simple worldview: people are either good or bad. Complexities are for the “reality-based community.” For the president, labeling someone a “good man” isn’t just deep insight into a person’s character, it’s the only insight necessary.
But it also offers a look into a flaw (one of many) in Bush’s approach to the world. As Josh Marshall recently noted:
[Bush] gets clear first impressions and makes judgments based on instinct. And then there’s almost no follow-up, no challenging instinct with the harsh light of facts. And certainly no accountability. More often than the not, or course, the instinct turns out to just be wrong. As with Iraq, and Putin’s soul and now Kerik.
Exactly. If Bush had unique insights into the world around him, perhaps his ability to throw around the “good man” label would be more useful. He doesn’t, so the standard quickly became meaningless.