Putting Bush’s bubble in a historical context

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe wrote a terrific cover story this week on my favorite subject, Bush’s “bubble.” There’s fodder here for a half-dozen blog posts, but I was struck by the article’s historical comparisons.

Sen. Richard Lugar, Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for example, has been in the Senate for 30 years and has worked with five presidents. Lugar is a conservative Republican, but he’s developed a reputation for his ability to work with Dems. Recently, Lugar told reporters that Bush needs to “have much more of a cadre of people in both houses, from both parties” visiting the White House “very frequently” so he can be informed and exposed to a variety competing ideas. Who did Lugar point to as a model for how it’s done? Bill Clinton. (This, of course, means Bush will reject the notion out of hand.)

But it’s not just Bush’s immediate predecessor that comes to mind.

Clearly, George W. Bush’s role model is not his father, who every week would ride down from the White House to the House of Representatives gymnasium, just to hear what fellows like Murtha were saying. Nor is the model John F. Kennedy, who during the Cuban missile crisis reached out to form an “ExCom” of present and past national-security officials, from both parties, to find some way back from the abyss short of war. Nor is it Franklin Roosevelt, who liked to create competition between advisers to find the best solution. Or Abraham Lincoln who, as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin writes in her new book, “Team of Rivals,” appointed his political foes to his cabinet.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find it almost hilarious to imagine Bush following any of these examples in any way. He has his gut and his yes-men — why would he need to reach out to lawmakers, bi-partisan experts, and political opponents?

If you said, “Because it’d be good for the country and Bush would benefit from hearing diverse perspectives,” you now know why you’re not welcome at the Bush White House. Come to think of it, you’re not welcome at presidential events either.

Slightly OT but I love the snip that is on all the blogs from Time’s Mike Allen (with a comments from Brooks on MTP) about Bush’s friends thinking he was going to be a “great” president like Lincoln or FDR, having to revise their thoughts but still thinking he had the potential to be a Reagan. And we think Bush is deluded.

  • Another metaphor – aside from the “bubble” – came to mind for the Dubya White House: that of an assisted living facility for a certain prep school twit…

    Dubya is presented as this impaired shell of a man…the quote from Condi – “Don’t upset him” – urging the foreign diplomat to refrain from raising bad news with Bush is priceless…LMAO.

  • His gut, his yes-men, and God, CB. Don’t forget God. Kind of makes you wonder why he even bothers with his gut or his yes-men.

  • The modern model for Shrub clearly is Nixon. The imperial hubris, the ill temper and ill-will, the thin skin, the confrontational style, the dirty tricks, the outright paranoia.

    I don’t think there are any more in American history. I think to find a historical model beyond Nixon you need to go back as far as Shrub’s namesake: King George III of England.

    I’m sure there are other models back further than that, in perhaps some of Shakespeare’s tragic kings, or a Roman emperor or two, or one of the ancient Greek rulers.

    There’s nothing new about imperial hubris, stupidity, and mediocrity. What’s new is to have it in America– which is a clear sign of its slide from Republic to Empire.

  • Comments are closed.