A discussion on Bush and Presidential Isolation during the Dark Days

I think Bush's problem is that many aren't willing to see past the mistakes of his first term, for which I predictably blame Wolfowitz and Perle. As he is/was CiC, he takes the public brunt of the backlash.

Rightly so. Whoever influenced him, the decisions were his to make and he has to suffer the consequences.

I think OWM's opening point about Bush either taking control of his legacy or simply serving his term out, laying low and whatnot, is definately a good one. However, I think one question we should perhaps consider is; has Dubya changed, or was the perception of him as a President and leader vastly inflated because of 9/11?

I think there are two things here. One is that 9/11 inflated his standing but more importantly people were willing to see past his flaws until the consequences of those flaws hit home. His lack of foreign policy experience didn't bother people because he had lot's of 'expert' advisors. Then it turns out that he had been given bad advice and people begin to see why it might have been a good idea to have a President who knew a little about the world outside of America. His cronyism didn't really bother people because the average Joe isn't going to a get a job off the president anyway. Then his cronies who are in important positions screw up and people see the consequences of his cronyism. Bush is no better or worse a President now than he was 4 years ago but time has exposed his failings for all to see.

 

Referring back to OWM and Mr44's comments and questions, how would the Bush White House compare to the LBJ White House during the worst parts of the Vietnam War? Or how would they compare to Nixon?s White House after the "Saturday night massacre" at the depths of Watergate? It seems to me that things are still pretty calm and ?business as usual? for the large majority of the West Wing. People are not getting fired left and right, resignations are not taking place en masse, the executive branch of the government continues to function fairly normally. Judges are nominated, foreign policy is decided upon and enacted (like Rice?s trip to the Middle East), etc.

It?s my opinion that comparing today?s White House with those other two situations is not a very useful exercise. For one thing, popular pressures are very different. For example, while the country is less and less sure that the U.S. should have gone into Iraq, there are not massive demonstrations at every campus in the country demanding that we get out yesterday. Both LBJ and Nixon also had to deal with hostile, opposition-controlled Congresses (if I remember correctly), while this presidency maintains majorities in both houses.

Every president has their own style of leading. Some work by consensus; they get their advisors together and then engage in discussions of what should be done on a particular subject. Carter was an excellent example of this type (just look at the discussions/arguments between his SecState and NSAdvisor; whoever won the discussions tended to determine the administration?s policies for the week). Bush I also falls into this category. Other presidents run their own show (at least in some policy areas), where they believe it?s their job to make the final decision, whether their aides agree or not. Reagan has been categorized as this type, where he took some matters into his own hands, over the objections of his advisors. There are also the presidents who expect their cabinet and aides to ?duke it out? in front of him and then he makes the final decision. Nixon (and to a lesser degree LBJ) fall into this category. This style tends to lead to a very fracture executive branch, especially as arguments often spill into the public sphere.

Each style (and there are more) has advantages, but also distinct problems, associated with them. One of the more prominent downsides of most of these types of presidential leadership is that the nature of the people you surround yourself with (your closest aides and important cabinet members) usually determine your perception of the world. And keep in mind the so-called ?first law of politics?: your perception IS your reality. Since presidents rarely enjoy being told they are wrong, they (both parties) usually keep friends and similarly-minded people close to them. The insulation that results from this arrangement has been decried during most administrations.

My opinion of the article first mentioned in this thread is that it seems to rely a great deal on a single, anonymous source, which usually undercuts the authority of the claims made. Combined with other articles and on-the-record sources that claim otherwise, I find it hard to accept the article as much more than a sensationalist expansion of potential trends. Of course these are difficult times for Bush and the White House. However, I don?t think that Bush is locking himself in the Oval Office and just talking to his mother on the phone. His government still functions, and as has been previously mentioned, second terms are usually rocky for presidents.

Darth Doug

 

His government still functions

All the same, many may argue that it does not function "well." Katrina being case point.

 

I think at this point, I'm going to say I agree with DarthKarde. I will however reiterate my cautious optimism about the directions his second term foreign policy platform appears to be taking, in terms of a [welcome] return to consensus building, which as I've said before the is the US' strength.

E_S

 

Curiously enough, for the second time in about a week, one of my comments has been followed up with a similar story in the NYT the next day. Very odd...

In today's NYT, there is an article that purports to make connections between the Nixon White House and the current administration. It's an interesting read, but I think falls short in its attempts to draw very many significant parallels. The concern about image to the public and trying to bolster a regime many miles from the U.S. seem to be the closest comparisons.

The article is here.