Exploring the ‘Bubble Boy’ policy

November 29, 2005

The WaPo’s Dan Froomkin stepped back a bit today to consider Bush’s “Bubble Boy” policies in the broader context.

What does it say about the president of the United States that he won’t go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he’ll only speak to captive audiences? […]

Why is this happening? Is it related to the widespread public dissatisfaction with his policies, particularly in Iraq? Is Bush reluctant to appear before an audience that might not clap at his applause lines? Is he afraid of dissent? Are his aides shielding him against his will? Is it just a matter of stagecraft, to avoid any incident that might lure the media off message?

We don’t know, of course, because no one has actually asked the White House to explain.

That last point, about someone actually asking the White House about these policies, can be pretty easily rectified. At a minimum, someone could press Scott McClellan about it, that is, if he ever hosts another press briefing.

But the question of why the White House embraced this approach in the first place has been a political mystery for a long while.

In fact, every time I see one of Bush’s carefully-screened events to discuss public policy, I’m reminded of Clinton’s approach, which was the opposite. In 1998, Clinton hosted an event on Social Security in Pennsylvania. The audience was prescreened, but not to keep dissent out, but to keep diversity in — the White House used a market research company to reflect the demographic and economic characteristics of the region.

And yet, the current occupant of the Oval Office is shielded at nearly all times from those who might challenge him or ask a pointed question that he’s not prepared to answer.

All of the reasons Froomkin listed are compelling, but my personal guess as to why Bush hides in his bubble is because he lacks the courage of his convictions.

I used to work for someone who believed that he could convince ideological opponents, based on reason and evidence, that he was right. He assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that well-intentioned people are just open-minded enough to consider the facts as they’re presented, and they would base their opinions accordingly. Why shy away from a debate if you’re confident you’re right?

I think Clinton probably followed a similar belief. If someone had a question about his policies or agenda, Clinton seemed to believe he could convince the skeptic, just by making his case as best he could. He had faith in the strength of his ideas — and in his own power of persuasion.

This is where I think Bush falters. He understands the talking points he’s given, but I suspect Bush worries that he can’t defend his policies beyond the surface-level rhetoric. By limiting the questioners to those who are already predisposed to believe everything he says, Bush has nothing to fear.

If this means the electorate is deprived of meaningful policy discussions, with a free exchange of ideas, between regular Americans and the president, it’s a sacrifice Bush seems willing to make.

Anymore?

He was never big on audiences that had the slightest bit of a chance to throw him a question he hadn’t prepared a pat response to.

Yes I think it means he doesn’t have the courage of his conviction but I also think that he knows what he knows and knows no more than that. Having a diverse audience means you have to prepare for any question, not just questions within a small range of thought. One of the things that I have always though that was one of the most important things to know about this president was that he lacked any intellectual curosity. It means that he doesn’t ask many questions, follow-up questions and the right questions of his aids. It also means he doesn’t care to hear from those that might disagree, even if that disagree is only to a small degree.

  • Blair, like him or not, is also more like Clinton–he will at least engaged the opposition, listen to them, and feel he has the ability to convince the opposition of the correctness of his decisions. Not that his decisions are proven correct, though.

  • My theory has always been that he cannot
    function in an unscripted event, and that he
    invariably makes a fool of himself when he
    does. His handlers simply cannot allow the
    president of the United States to reveal
    himself as the bumbling, shallow fool that
    he is.

    Now that he’s become so unpopular it’s
    become ever more important to shelter
    him from the people, and those who might
    ask him questions that he is incapable of
    stumbling through.

  • Bush not only lacks the courage of his convictions, but lacks convictions. Period. That’s what struck me most about his behaviour regarding the Iraq war. He always seemed to stumble for words, and each explanation was different.

    I don’t hold it against Bush that he’s a poor speaker. But even poor speakers *with conviction* can get their points across persuasively. That’s why I’ve always seen him as the kid who didn’t study and thrashes around helplessly when called on in class.

  • What ‘s to argue?
    You are either with good or you are with evil.

    I gave Bush a new monniker yesterday on a couple of different site-threads: One-book Bush.

    Guess which book that is?

    Hint:

    You either have faith in the truth or you don’t.
    If you do have faith, listening to dissent is a waste of time.

    Listen folks: Bush really really really really really really believes he is God’s agent.

    Really! He ain’t pretending just to get votes.

  • Bush spent six months pushing the privatizaton of Social Security in the midle of a war. No one in the audience ever asked him about how the stock market would change if there was a guaranteed inflow of cash every year.

    Bush wanted Americans to make a one of the biggest changes in the way or government works in 70 years without any information. The investors in Pets.com got a propectus if they wanted it but not the biggest class of investors in world history. Where were the studies of the impact of privatization of social security on the stock market that you know Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch put together?

    People can argue that the Bush administration did not mislead the country into war but there is no justification for Bush’s negligent and criminally remiss attempt to push privatization of social security on Americans. Anyone with a 401(k) can understand that Bush was a huckster selling snake oil.

  • Sorry to hog more space, CB, but I really
    disagree with that former employer of yours:

    “I used to work for someone who believed that he could convince ideological opponents, based on reason and evidence, that he was right.”

    Just my observation, over sixty plus years, is that
    the clever wordsmith, with a healthy dose of
    sophistry, wins the debate every time. Creationists
    always clobber tongue-tied brilliant scientists in the
    evolution debates.

    It’s why the Republicans are winning. Democrats
    can’t get any traction with reason and evidence.

    Salesmen lie, and we buy, to put it differently.

    And, of course, the idea that you can ever convince
    an ideological opponent of anything is ridiculous
    on its face. It’s like trying to talk someone out of
    his/her religion. Can’t be done.

  • Hark:

    It’s why the Republicans are winning. Democrats
    can’t get any traction with reason and evidence.

    So very true.
    But they can get traction.
    It is however a seriously hard pull.

    To wit:

    There hasn’t been a glib democrat since Big Dog.
    Face it: Bill could skin, dice, and sheath republican talking points into shit sausages better than anyone.
    He won every debate he was in with 5 stars.
    He was totally + totally untouchable.

    Here is a fundamental truth:

    The Democratic party isn’t based on hate, or religion, or religious hate. That puts an added burden on its vocalizations.

    Ergo: the Democratic party is only as good –only as sharp– as it #1 verbalizer.

    That’s why I like Barack. No one on the national stage comes close to his wordsmithing. And if there is ever going to be another successful democrat… he must be able to talk at nearly the level of Bill Clinton.

    That’s a tall damn order.
    But it is the only order that will fit the bill.

  • I agree with hark’s first post. The flip side of Bush not wanting his beliefs challenged is how he reacts when his beliefs are called into question. The last thing his handlers want is for him to, in essence, respond to a skeptical audience member with, “I’m President, end of discussion.”

    I don’t fully agree with hark’s second post. I once had may “Country Club Republican” friends. It’s a hazard of where I live, like dealing with aligators in Florida. Most of these people were extremely disingenuous in their political arguments. The reason is that they can not simply say that their only concern is what’s in it for them. There is also some congenital stupidity in the business class. It was very frustrating to argue with these people.

    I have for the most part avoided the religious wing of the Republican party. My guess is they are no better than the CCR.

    While reasoned political debate does nothing to shift the opinions of these people, it does shift opinions. For example, I have one conservative friend, an academic, with whom I could argue and change his mind, as he could mine. The question of effectiveness of reasoned debate comes down to demographics: are there enough reasonable people out there?

  • >it’s a sacrifice Bush seems willing to make.

    I don’t think he thinks it’s a sacrifice. It’s just how the world should be.

  • 1) He cant argue his way out of a paper bag
    2) His only choice in facing opponents would be to bluster (pissing them off), obfuscate (reinforcing his deception) or stumble in an attempted reasoned reply (reinforcing his incompetence)
    3) His so called convictions are those of a recent convert. Born agains dont have any convictions at all, just the ones brainwashed into them. The convictions they once had, are gone. They might have been good convictions, but incompetence may have made them seem otherwise. The new found faith they have is not a set of convictions brought into existence from a life of experience, its just psycho babble, and require closemindedness to keep them in place.

    Religous wackadoos who believe they are god’s mouthpiece CANNOT just turn and pretend they arent. This would be a recipe for him to go back to the booze. Not gonna happen. God (or whatever he thinks that is) is his lifeline. He is completely and utterly lost without him/her/it. Ironically, he is completely lost all the same with him…just in a different way.

    He is obviously radioactive at this point, and to fail in front of a less than friendly audience could lead to a meltdown of the “presidency”. The people running the “presidency” arent gonna let him anywhere near a place he can get himself into further trouble. At this point, they are going to squelch anyone who talks stupid, like McClellan, who will retire for personal reasons in the next week.

  • Scottie was back today, but in the literally rarefied confines of Air Force One while in flight. These conferences are never contentious. He makes a few statements, some polite questions are asked, he repeats the statements.

    Of course, he was still sidestepping. He layed out the three main points of Bush’s speech tomw, then refused to answer a question that would call for him to preview the speech. In other words, he gave the speech before the speech, which apparently is still being tweaked (presumably by reactions to Scottie’s three points).

    It will be interesting to see if his future gaggles are like this one: in front of friendly, respectful crowds, just like Bush’s own speeches.

  • Bubba writes: “Blair, like him or not, is also more like Clinton–he will at least engaged the opposition, listen to them, and feel he has the ability to convince the opposition of the correctness of his decisions. Not that his decisions are proven correct, though.”

    Tony Blair has to stand up every Wednesday and answer questions from his Parliament. And some of the questions from his backbenchers are probably worse than those from his opposition.

    American politicians would be so much better if they had to face that kind of pressure.

  • Have you ever heard him when he strays from his talking points? It’s frightening. The more he talks, the less you believe him.

    His handlers are right. Stick to the script.

  • Hark nailed it first time through. Remember Bush lost every debate with Kerry (in spite of wearing the radio cheater), and should have been seen to have lost them all against Gore (Gore won the arguments, but apparently reasoned discussion is for naught if you sigh too loud when your opponent says something idiotic).

    “Governor Stevenson, all thinking people are for you!” And Adlai Stevenson answered, “That’s not enough. I need a majority.”

  • Actually, Scottie was back yesterday, but the WH just posted the transcript from today’s gaggle, also aboard Air Force One, also without much back and forth.

  • Since he was prepped adequately enough for campaign debates, why could he not wear a device as he did then to field any unanticipated questions? Maybe his handlers are afraid he will behave defensively or antagonistically which looks tough in a debate, but would be inappropriate in a town hall meeting.

  • Every four years we engage in a process not unlike standing at the top of a cliff which, when we look over the edge, cannot see the bottom of because it’s obscured by mist. There are two people standing at the top of the cliff with us, each of them saying, “Just grab hold of my hand and we’ll leap together and I will guide us to a safe landing. Trust me.” We pick one of them and over the edge we go. We call this a presidential election.

    In the post-Cold War year of 2000, the corporatists and other plutocrats, assuming that nothing seriously traumatic would happen to the country, picked Dear Leader as their ramrod for the tax breaks they had coveted for so long. If Bill Clinton was the President as Graduate Student/Policy Wonk, 43 was the President as Corporate Pitch Man. No one in their wildest dreams ever conceived of a 9/11; had they, Bush would never have been nominated, much less elected. But, because we can never see the bottom of the cliff through the mist, Bush was nominated and, well, didn’t exactly win, but became President.

    This is a long way of saying that Bush never really wanted the job in the first place, and now in a post – 9/11 world, REALLY doesn’t want the job. That’s why the only true thing he said during the debates — and you can bet your bottom dollar it was not scripted — was being President is such hard work.

    Right: It’s a hard job that he never wanted in the first place. His deal was to hang in the job, give the plutocrats what they wanted — the Enronization of the country — and then spend all, not just most, of his time on vacation after his little sojourn was over.

    He’s never done a hard thing in his life. And answering unscripted questions leads the list of “hard things” he’ll never want to do.

    Worst. President. Ever.

  • Seymour Hersh presents evidence in The New Yorker to help us answer Dan Froomkin’s queries:

    “The President is more determined than ever to stay the course,” the former defense official said. “He doesn’t feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage ‘People may suffer and die, but the Church advances.’ ” He said that the President had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney. “They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,” the former defense official said. Bush’s public appearances, for example, are generally scheduled in front of friendly audiences, most often at military bases. Four decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson, who was also confronted with an increasingly unpopular war, was limited to similar public forums. “Johnson knew he was a prisoner in the White House,” the former official said, “but Bush has no idea.”

    The answer is: Bubble boy. Indeed.

  • Many of you are exactly right that Bushit is stumbling fool with shallow leadership skills and no foreign policy experience. Now since we all know these as facts, why don’t someone give him a blow job, so he can impeached and we can move on from this nightmare of failed government policies.

  • Bush is a walking potential Funniest Home Video. I feel his handler(s), Rove and Cheney, don’t want Bush embarassing himself by making unscripted appearances or speeches.

    I saw a video of the Shrub clearing brush and he is using a chainsaw to cut through the trunk of a tree that is down on a hillside. The end of the tree is laying against another growing tree. Because of Shrub standing on the down hill side of the log he is cutting, he is in the path of the log which will roll down hill once he cuts all the way it. I was looking forward to a scene reminiscent of a Hanna Barbera cartoon when the video stopped. Shrub is just an empty suit with Rove propping him up. We can look forward to Shrub crumbling if Rove is indicted. I wonder what it would take for George, Sr., to go to the White House, snatch George, Jr., up by the neck, slap the S__t of him, and say “What the f__k were you thinking?”

  • Bubble-boy never has come face to face with anyone who disagrees with him. He speaks only to those who have been screened or the kool-aid drinking bastards who follow him and his stinking party. I`m commited to seeing his Alfred E. Newman ass ride off into the sunset on that stupid mountain bike three years from now,and I can only hope that he pays for what he`s done to this country. The only good thing about bush is he will save us some money on his presidential library,two comic books in the back of a 54 Olds.

  • Seems to me the presumption is that if Bush were to come out of his bubble then we might begin a national conversation…

    That’s the last thing his handlers want…rather, they prefer it scripted, or to borrow a page from the theorists: they want the meta-narrative…this isn’t about democracy, it’s about power unchallenged…the sanitized and scripted event where dissent is unthinkable is a Republican tradition going back to Reagan, at least…but it’s my hope that Americans are getting hip to media (they’re so over-exposed) and that the scripted moment has lost some of its propaganda advantage.

    When Bush fails to control the news cycle – whether it’s Hurricane Katrina or Patrick Fitzgerald earnestly refuting Repub talking points as he announces his Libby indictment – these moments are fatal to Bush’s agenda…

    • Comments are closed.