Bush’s Bubble remains very much intact

June 3, 2006

According a front-page piece in the WaPo today, the [tag]president[/tag] who famously equates disagreement with disloyalty is suddenly open to subtle forms of [tag]dissent[/tag].

A White House long accused of squelching internal dissent and ignoring outside viewpoints has been reaching out in its moment of weakness to prominent figures who have disagreed with the president. Bush just hired a Treasury secretary who opposed his policy on global warming and a press secretary who dismissed his domestic agenda as timid and listless.

How much such moves reflect a genuine opening up for an insular White House remains uncertain. Symbolically, at least, the [tag]White House[/tag] is eager to rebut the longstanding public impression of a president in a bunker listening only to like-minded advisers.

On its face, the notion is startling. We’ve become so accustomed to a president who enjoys the safety of his little “[tag]bubble[/tag]” that we’re actually supposed to be impressed — front-page- of-the-Washington-Post impressed — that [tag]Bush[/tag] is actually willing to be exposed to a few people whose opinions on isolated issues are slightly different from his own.

The underlying premise of the Post piece is that the nation’s standards have dropped so far that the president is to be congratulated — literally — for hiring a Treasury Secretary who agrees with every economic decision the administration has made, just because he disagrees with the president on global warming. For anyone who takes diversity of thought seriously, this doesn’t make any sense.

Regardless, the WaPo’s evidence of Bush’s new [tag]tolerance[/tag] for dissent is pretty thin.

[tag]Henry Paulson[/tag] for Treasury isn’t exactly a persuasive example — Paulson disagrees with Bush on environmental issues, but has been nominated for a post that has nothing to do with the environment, and agrees with every economic decision the White House has made since 2001. Press Secretary [tag]Tony Snow[/tag] took a few mild shots at the White House as a conservative commentator, but that was just empty rhetoric. Besides, reaching out to Fox News for your press secretary is hardly a sign of a deteriorating bubble.

Let’s be clear: genuine tolerance for dissent includes sincere consideration of ideas that conflict with pre-conceived notions. What evidence is there that Bush has matured in this capacity? None.

“I want to see the [tag]proof[/tag],” said retired Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff at the State Department until last year, when he emerged as a vocal critic of the administration. “I can hope, as I imagine 60 to 70 percent of Americans are hoping, . . . we are going to see some moderation and it’s going to bear some fruit. But I’ve got to see the fruit, because I’ve seen this before.”

Shorter WaPo: Bush was FOR the bubble before he was AGAINST it

  • The divider always continues to divide. Occasionally he has to sharpen his pencil. The divisions in the country widens regardless. The GOP is now looking forward to getting rid of Bush. Let’s see what their primary rhetoric sounds like in a year or two.

  • I just sent the following email to the article’s author over at the Washington Post.

    I continue to suggest contacting the media more often, more directly, and civilly. I think that democrats, unlike republicans, continously fail in this regard. To quote someone who wrote to me (but has not yet given me direct permission to quote, so won’t use his name) earlier today “When someone tells you contacting media outlets doesn’t do any good, [something that fairly strongly encourages them otherwise] They absolutely have to be kept under pressure, constant pressure, to do the right thing.”

    Dear Mr. Baker:

    With respect to your piece “White House Opens Doors to Dissenters”

    It seems “dissenters” is rather strong language to use. Were all of those who served with Bill Clinton and did not agree with every policy detail, also “dissenters,” or is this a sign of the times and just another example of the different standard by which the current administration is judged? That is… so open-minded as to permit “dissenters”?

    Those to whom “Bush has seemed powerfully indifferent to alternative views or shielded from them altogether,” were termed “disaffected insiders.”

    Those who “recall past instances when nonconformists within the administration were shut out,” were termed “skeptics.”

    With respect to Treasury nominee Paulson, he is the outgoing [chair, I think it is] of the nature conservancy, and donated close to a million to the league of conservation voters,” which believes Bush is easily the worst environmental president in our history.

    Maybe there are just a shortage of people left in America who believe all the same propaganda the administration believes? For example, outside of YOUR NEWSPAPER and similar media sources, find constitutional scholars who do not see the NSA issue fairly clearly. Who are not far right wing administration shills. There just are not that many that are prominent. The far right has dominated politics in America, and has influenced the media unduly, but it does not dominate America.

    You also write: “In Bush’s view, certitude has served him well — a fidelity to core principles that avoids the sort of equivocation that he believes undermined Bill Clinton’s presidency.”

    Is that what undermined Clinton’s presidency (to the marginal extent it was)? Or was it Clinton’s indiscretion with Lewinsky, and the tenacious and persistent right wing and media attention for two years of America’s collective history on this otherwise personal matter?

    Also, what core principles? Fighting terrorism by liberating a country that was no more marginally tied to terrorism than dozens of others (although that particular principle I understand as a supplement to, not as a substitute for, fighting terrorism, and if done more thoughtfully and with international support)? Recklessly deficit spending our way to economic growth that even according to the Fed chair, is largely benefiting only a small handful of wealthy Americans, the same ones already benefiting under the reckless tax cuts? The environment can take care of itself, that even though it is the one true thing that we all share and all must share, that it is not the province of government to address it? The principles of separation of powers, or checks and balances, under our constitution? That the big danger to America today is gay marriage?….

    Or the talking points that the media duly repeats, that bear a large gap from reality.

    Or what about the litany of equivocations, and inconsistencies of this administration, far too long to delve into here.

    It also seems like you spin McCaffrey helping to brief the administration on Iraq, at a time into some sort of good thing, when in reality the absence of lively debate and outside opinion has been the story, and a bad thing, and what has led to a point of almost desperation on Iraq where McCaffrey’s views might be considered.

  • The Washington Post presenting info about this administration is to be believed? The ‘evidence’ they put forward is laughable.

    The day Bush hires a Secretary of the Interior and an EPA Administrator who disagree with him on global warming, and hires a Press Secretary who believes omission of truth is lying, then it might be a sign of ….something on the right track.

    What kind of flexibility is it when his “hires” have a differing opinion on a subject over which they have ZERO authority?? B.F.D. Let’s put eunuchs in charge of the harem.

    The day Bush demonstrates he isn’t threatened with the combination of difference of opinion, and being in a place to actuall follow through, THEN talk to me about emerging from the bubble.

  • He’s The Decider and he’ll decide “don’t bother me with facts, my mind’s already made up.” It’s like telling a guy driving 100mph toward a cliff “Hey! There’s a cliff there!!” when he hasn’t got the stopping distance left to not go on over.

  • Changing the faces will make no difference if you don’t listen to the new ones either.

  • George W. Bush is a criminal. His entire administration is a criminal conspiracy which has victimized this country in ways that will impair the United States for years to come. Until Bush and the actions of his administration are seen from this perspective, stories like the one that appeared in the Washington Post and the following debate about Bush’s new willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints are utterly meaningless. Our only hope to right these wrongs at this point is for the Democrats to regain power in the 2006 elections and to promptly begin investigations into these criminal actions.

  • Bush is being told by his Inner Circle that he needs to look like he is reaching out to dissenters. And it’s killing him, I’m sure.

  • I seem to recall the Bush administration’s receiving plaudits some time ago for having an ethnically diverse cabinet. Big deal. There was no diversity of thought whatsoever. And there still isn’t.

  • The Republicant’s solution to dissent within the ranks is to bring that dissent into the bubble. The bubble serves as a two-way barrier, so the dissent that cannot reach “in” to Kid George from the outside—also cannot reach “out” to “Mr. and Mrs. America, and all the ships at sea” from the inside….

  • All Henry Paulson will have for his trouble will be the joy of seeing his name on some U.S. $$$. It’s what to give to the man who has everything. And ShrubCo gets to see itself in the news for a little while with The Decider’s name next to the term “pro-environment” just by rubbing up against Paulson. But Hank is going to need some Kwell to get rid of ShrubCo’s cooties.

    Thinking of this Paulson/ShrubCo scenario reminds me that when I read the New Yorker article about Worley and the Nigerians, I thought the Nigerians were very ShrubCo-esque in their persistance and lies and soothing B.S. followed by more lies and persistance and soothing B.S. always circling back to “What can you do for me and how soon?”.

    Paulson has fallen for the ShrubCo Meaningless Position Scam. A good screwing by ShrubCo in exchange for some of the newbies credibility. The bubble floats on. There’s nothing new to see here.

    A pro-environment Treasury Secretary, (?)…..maybe Rumsfeld can get behind hot school lunches and Cheney might promote abandoned pet adoption. Karl could champion recycling and a national canned food drive!! This could be the feel-goodest administration ever! “Come on gang, it’s time to ditch this bubble so we can do some good for America!”

    Oh yeah…..

  • The ridiculous thing is that the folks who have supposedly dissenting views aren’t in positions where their dissent actually matters. Tony Snow may have criticized Bush’s domestic policy, but he WASN’T hired as domestic policy adviser. Similarly, Paulson wasn’t hired to run the EPA, so his “dissenting opinion” on global warming is more or less irrelevant.

    Same thing for Powell and Whitman’s pro-choice stances… neither was in a position to do anything about it.

  • This is so unbelievably sad … that anyone not in 100% compliance with W is now termed a “dissenter.” When the Greeks invented democracy they viewed debate as an essential part of the process. What was once a virtue is now a vice. Here in the U.S. in 2006, any disagreement with leadership is now viewed as unpatriotic. This is a diseased democracy … and I wonder what W is trying to spread – true democracy or the version that we now have that is rotting from the inside out.

  • Whee! Another Republican “maverick” is found by the media! Never mind this will make zero difference in the conservative agenda pursued by the Administration and Congress.

    As long as the Repubs maintain their control of Congress and the White house, such moderates have no effect on policymaking. They have had influence in the past when there was divided government, and compromise positions had to be fashioned to get anything done.

    Paradoxically, the only way right now to increase the influence of the center is to throw a few of the moderate Repubs out of Congress, losing or endangering their majority. However, the continued swooning of centrists over the Moderate Republican may prevent that from happening.

  • Read and Weep!
    The former Nigerian president enlisted Chaney’s political support in return for a large sum (millions) of oil bribe money. The FBI’s raid on Jefferson’s office may have had more to do with eliminating evidence involving U.S. oil companies in Nigerian bribery schemes thus protecting Cheney more than in nailing Jefferson for a mere $90k. White folks like money, big money and will do anything for it.

  • One idiotic thing about Bush and his gang is that they don’t see the real value of diversity as a tool of superior decision making. So they pretend to honor diversity (and show a diverse face) but there is nothing behind it because (as usual) they don’t get the underlying principles!

    See: http://lushforlife.com/more.php?id=246 or link:

    link

    • Comments are closed.