Written Assignment # 2
In January 2003, President Bush met with a group of people including three Iraqi Americans to discuss the likely political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein (Avard). In the course of this meeting it became apparent that Bush had no understanding of the differences between the three major demographic divisions within Iraq: the Sunni, the Shiite, and the Kurds (Galbraith). Two months later America was in a war with Iraq. The shoddy conduct in which Bush led the country into, and waged the war with Iraq (post-invasion Iraqi unemployment of 60% (Wright, Knickmeyer), disbanding of the Iraqi National Army (Slocombe), etc.) is just one illustration of why it is preferable to have a president who is analytical and deliberative but less politically accomplished than one like Bush, who acts, however effectively, on gut reactions.
Ron Suskind, in his October 17, 2004 article Without a Doubt, presents a very compelling image of Bush’s leadership style. Suskind lays out numerous instances where Bush has demonstrated a pronounced lack of intellectual curiosity, and ignorance of issues pertinent to the office of the presidency. But Suskind argues that, despite Bush’s intellectual shortcomings, he is a leader the American people find very easy to follow and that it is because he does not present himself as equivocal on issues that the American people have found him to be so palatable.
How is it that the leader of the free world can flirt so frequently with the idiocy line, but still have major political achievements under his belt? It has a lot to do with the minimal competence presidential structure. In this structure, the president delegates authority to a trusted bunch of advisors who share his political vision. This requires the president to have only a minimal understanding of the specifics of issues (Nelson). So, the president in this political structure functions largely as a figurehead to a management team.
There are a couple important problems with Bush’s embodiment of the minimal competence type of president. The first and most obvious problem is that, when it is crunch time and the president does have to act swiftly, a minimal competence president’s instincts will be based on a less than thorough understanding of the facts and responsibilities. So, in late August 2005, when water was flooding into New Orleans it was crunch time for the president and his reaction was, to say the least, sub-par (Leader).
Secondly, there are very real concerns when the executive power that the country has assigned to the elected president gets delegated to unelected and perhaps less savory, often sycophantic political characters. In President Bush’s case you have your Karl Rove types. These are people who might leak the name of a classified CIA agent to reporters for political gain (Isikoff), or conduct push polls in South Carolina that falsely indicate that your opponent has an illegitimate interracial child (Franken). Of course, there is something to be said for the fact that this aspect goes a long way in keeping the President from suffering the ills of “It’s lonely at the top” syndrome, just because he has so many friends working at pretty much the same level.
The third problem I see is that the minimal competence presidency opens the door for soft demagoguery. Because this presidential structure has the president as more of an executive figurehead than executive officer, the potential for that president to tout an identity that appeases the masses rather than be a principled leader is very great. In Without a Doubt, Suskind points out just how much Bush does this especially in regards to religion—how Bush’s strongly religious rhetoric, in addition to other factors the masses relate to, has a lot to do with why people have been inclined to support him.
Bush’s political accomplishments are largely based on his demagogic tendencies with the citizens of America. No doubt the fact that his political party is the majority in both houses of Congress has a good deal to do with his accomplishments. But the Republican Party’s unity, which has allowed for him to achieve his goals, could not have been sustained without Bush’s good relationship with the American people.
Indeed, as Bush’s popularity among the American people deteriorates, so does the unity of the Republican Party. Now, with Bush polling in the mid 30’s, the frictions in the Republican Party are palpable. Republicans on the Hill and across the country are reluctant to vote with him and even more reluctant to campaign with him (Hammer).
This seems to indicate that putting things in absolute terms has a shelf life that depends on how soon the people realize something is wrong. The longer the consensus is kept in a president’s favor, the longer decisiveness is effective. But haste makes waste and when a president’s political leadership is based on instinctual reactions the American people will eventually awake to the waste.
There is a Winston Churchill quote that goes, “…democracy is the worst form of government except all the others…” I think the choice in presidential style follows similar lines. A thoroughly analytical president who gets little done is the worst style of president except all the others. It may take longer and be as imperfect as humanity dictates, but better worlds will be shaped by presidents who have actually analyzed issues than by those who act rashly or inconsiderately.
Explore the PBH Network! More funny, faster.