Whose Radicalism?
To read Sid Blumenthal’s columns over the last few years is a mixed experience. There is, of course, the pleasure of reading a gifted stylist and shrewd analyst of American politics. I don’t mean to flatter Sid (whom I’ve known since I interned at The New Republic in 1990) to say that he’s the rare analyst of contemporary affairs who brings to his commentary a deep knowledge of American history and political culture. His columns resonate with the earned authority that comes from real knowledge, not just the stature that comes from having a TV show or an Op-ed page (or a blog) as a platform. I often find myself nodding in agreement with his critiques. More important, I often learn from them.
This knowledge of history and political culture is what gives Blumenthal’s columns their singular place in journalism. Sometimes the knowledge manifests itself in small ways—like the observation (October 2005) that conservatives who claim Bush has somehow hijacked their ideology are “like Trotskyists for whom communism always remained an unfulfilled ideal.” But in a more basic way, it gives rise to a sense of perspective that keeps Sid from getting caught up, as so many pundits do, in the fashionable idea of the moment.
Still, while I enjoyed the intellectual (and aesthetic) pleasure of re-reading these chronicles of the Bush presidency, I also felt frustration and pain—the pain of being reminded of all that has gone wrong, even in the last two years. And worse than that: we’re reminded that it didn’t need to go wrong. Sid Blumenthal was one of the people warning us all along about this administration’s radicalism. But not enough of us listened or understood.
In his first post today, Sid proposes several themes of his book—indeed, themes of the Bush presidency—for discussion:
Bush’s uniquely radical presidency; his war on national security career staff professionals; the power of the vice president and the proliferation of networks of ideological cadres under his wing; one-party rule, the “K Street Project” and congressional corruption; and Rove’s polarizing political strategies.
A satisfactory discussion of these themes would, obviously, require more time and space than we have here. But I want to start with the notion of radicalism—a word in the title of this volume and one that Blumenthal repeats in the passage above.
I agree that Bush is a radical president—radical, of course, not in the sense of left-wing but in the sense of extremist and maximalist in ideology, of pushing hard for rapid, disruptive changes, of eager to use power and heedless of its restraints. His is the credo, as Barack Obama put it, of “anything goes.”
And I agree that this should have been obvious to everyone in 2000. Indeed, it boggles my mind that by mouthing the phrase “compassionate conservatism” Bush could have convinced so many people—so many people who write about politics for a living—that he was a moderate in the mold of … who? Jim Jeffords, who has left the Republican party? Lincoln Chafee, who may soon be leaving politics? Certainly not Rudy Giuliani, whose fiercely authoritarian inclinations make him as least as much of a right-winger as Bush (whatever his beliefs about abortion). One reason it was foolish for anyone to have ever considered Bush a moderate is that there are almost no moderates left in the Republican leadership ranks.
And this raises the question (or questions) that perhaps Sid or some of the other commentators might address: To what degree is Bush personally responsible for the current administration’s radicalism? Has this radicalism taken hold because Republicans now control all three branches of the federal government? Is it a case of absolute power corrupting absolutely? Are the “polarizing political strategies” of Rove—and before him Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater—at the root?
Let’s discuss.
Comments (16)
I'll offer my personal theory, Bush is a tool, handled and taken advantage of by those around him. He is quite competent to keep track of friends and enemies, so it's not that he's stupid (unread and incurious, yes).
It's that he has no policies of his own. His one policy legacy from Texas would be the huge number of executions (more than anyone else, anywhere else). His one foreign-policy goal before the election was to invade Iraq (as told the family biographer in 1999).
So Cheney pursues his goal of "restoring" presidential power, Rumsfeld chases his bureaucratic dreams of total departmental power, supporters at the edges like Perle and Norquist get their goodies, like transforming the Middle East or killing effective government.
It explains the incoherence of policy and execution. There is no center.
September 12, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the elephant in the room that everyone tries to ignore is the financial one. Under Bush the very, very wealthy have a bonanza. Now they are very, very, very wealthy, often without regard for laws. Notice how billions (real money) vanished in Iraq, almost certainly into the bank accounts of Bush supporters, such as the Halliburton and Bechtel corporations. Notice how government regulations that tended to stifle the shift of wealth into the very, very wealthy ones bank accounts, were dropped. Notice how a Medicare addition serves almost entirely to enrich the pharmaceutical industry.
Unfortunately, many Washington Democrats are complicit in these activities, so the elephant must remain invisible. Isn't it a pity?
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 12, 2006 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Bush is a tool -- or perhaps just much less of a one than I think many believe. But I'm also a northeasterner with virtually the same education living in Texas and am familiar with the style. I also know he's smart-ass articulate when he wants to be. Meandering, obfuscation, and a who-me? presentation may be intended to serve him well if legally embarrassing questions are asked, perhaps by a Democratic Congress. He sure isn't inarticulate in private life or in public life away from scrutiny.
What I do think he comes well within shouting distance of is sociopathy. It's a familiar kind of near-sociopathy -- it appears in (nouveau) riche, striving families a couple of generations down. I also don't think his education is entirely lost on him. But --you bet! -- he does a number with that strong West Texas accent when caught between Yale-Harvard and a culture which is very edgy about what's perceived to be a threatening "secular elite." I'd say he's tuned into this and handles it smartly even as he enters fully into the family culture of exploitation of the hardest-bitten type. His born-again experience has been as useful and about as sincere as Anna-Nicole's boob-job, and I think she's quite sincere. But her boobs weren't done for the glory of God either. Anna-Nicole and W both know who's number 1 in their respective lives.
To say Bush is a tool might make us less willing to give him full responsibility for the damage he's done. Would we ever concede that the grab for executive power was beyond his understanding? I don't think so.
There's a large group in his administration which deserves a particular kind of infamy when this era's history is written. That unattractive spoiled boy in the White House should be standing there in front of them, in full view, and not excused for any reason. Someone used the word "despised" the other day -- a very good one when thinking of Bush. There isn't a thing about him that comes to mind that isn't despicable. Except Barney and the environmental planning that went into the Crawford place! Hard to reconcile that. Maybe Laura?
September 12, 2006 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I agree with Tom that on some levels Bush is being used I still come back to the fact that Bush is the POTUS. The government goes where Bush allows it to go. I won't give him what appears to be an "out" that he is being used.
But even with that being said I don't think Bush has the intellectual acumen to fully understand what is happening all around him in terms of policy. He likes being president in terms of the status of the position but he has little interest in governing part of it. Like Tom said he has delegated all the day to day decision making to the Cheney's and Rumsfeld's of his administration. In that regard Bush reminds me very much of Reagan.
But what Bush's surrogates are implementing is the agenda of the farthest right extreme of the political spectrum. Until Bush took office the far right was paid lip service and rarely got a taste of power. But now that they have got a taste of power they have accomplished nothing towards their goal of a smaller government nor have implemented much of their social agenda of religious intolerence. They are to government what the Seinfeld show was to TV...a government/tv show about nothing. Their agenda of shrinking government has not come to fruition...in fact the government is bigger in scope now then it ever has been. So their legacy is they got rich off the big government they said they would dismantle...
September 12, 2006 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep...I agree, especially with your wrap-up. The dems want a taste of that money too. They are banking (pun intended) on getting back into power at some point (and they are thinking more sooner then later) so they don't want to bite the hand which they want to be fed by.
But until something is done to limit the money the dems would be strategically foolish disarm themselves in the political money wars. I think even if the dems get control after November they have very little chance of getting any progressive legislation passed. Too many on the political left in DC are just as beholden as the repugs are to the almighty $.
September 12, 2006 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a link from the Blumenthal thread:
On September 12, 2006 - 10:13pm Daniel Lee said:"Mr. Dowd’s finding that “you can lose the swing voters and still win the election, if you make sure your base is bigger than theirs,” says Mr. Edsall, decisively affected the Bush administration’s policy making on matters ranging from tax cuts to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003."
I knew Lee Atwater socially, from a time in the early 80's when we were once stuck together on the proverbial Delta Airlines "flight from hell" from DC to Columbia SC through Atlanta. We shared a non-political interest, blues, and loosely stayed in touch over the years before he died. Of course, we did discuss politics some.
The Dowd memo mentioned above simply reflects accomplishment of the long standing goal that I heard articulated by Atwater years ago-- to make the middle irrelevant. As we Southerners say, there isn't anything in the middle of a road other than dead skunks/dead possums/dead armadillos (take your pick.)
Were he alive today, I have no doubt that Atwater would be awed by how hard the chattering classes have fallen for the idea tht Rove is Bush's brain. They were both Atwater acolytes. The GOP has lived off of Atwater's strategic legacy for the better part of two decades-- there hasn't been an original idea since. Both Bush and Rove learned all they know from him. Sure, the technology available today lets you run a better GOTV campaign today, but Atwater's belief that the way to win elections is to slice the electorate so that your side gets the larger share is what drives Bush-- and his underling, Rove. Atwater was simply "hired help" to Bush 41, Rove is no more to Bush 43.
September 12, 2006 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Bush is a radical president, but not in the way you imply. His "war on national security career staff professionals" was brought to him, not the other way around. Bush is the President of the United States. As the president, he sets policy and is accountable to the people of the United States. He is not accountable to "career staff professionals." It has been well documented that many "career staff professionals" in the CIA and State Department have went out of their way to undermine Bush's policies. Anybody that works for me who knowingly and consistently undermines my policies will not be working for me. I expect no less from the President.
Bush's radicalism lies in that he is trying to democraticize the Middle East. History will judge him on that and that alone. The United States has the power (both economically and militarily) to support Iraq in its transition into a democracy. The only question is whether the American people (and by extension, their leaders) have the will to see it through. I fervently hope that we do.
September 12, 2006 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, you seem to be willfully getting everything wrong. The "war on national security career staff professionals" was initiated by Bush and his staff when they weren't getting the news they wanted. Competence and competence counts for nothing, loyalty is everything to this crew. Nobody went out of their way to undermine Bush's policies, but a blatant lie cannot be left unchallenged.
Bush resembles the CEO who plunders the employee retirement fund, lies to the stockholders, and fattens his own paycheck whilst the company drifts rudderless into bankruptcy. He has turned the USA into Enron.
As for your hope that Bush may be remembered for his Mideast policy, I have to say that it will also play a role in the history books, but not as you think. Mr. Bush squandered his political, military and capital in a series of ill-planned ventures and neglect. He has worsened the cause for democratic governance in the Mideast, doing only the bare minimum to maintain appearances. If anything, the current Lebanon situation reveals just how irrelevant Bush is to the players there. Iran's president even dares to tweak Bush by the nose, responding only to the Europeans and Chinese.
September 13, 2006 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
His "war on national security career staff professionals" was brought to him, not the other way around.
Please. This war was Team B leftovers from 1976, including the cast of characters, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. It was merely reheated in 2001.
The United States has the power (both economically and militarily) to support Iraq in its transition into a democracy.
Apparently other factors are also involved, starting with culture and traditions. Not to mention extremely negative views of the US by the occupied themselves. All the things which were not considered before the invasion.
"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003
September 13, 2006 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
My opinion is that we cannot be sure that the ideological and political machine has overwhelmed the policy machine entirely (as O'Neill and others said). And more important, I fear that the big players's gut-levels beliefs are not much different than those of the "base".
Not the Armageddon Christianity so much(except for Bush himself) but the blind militarism and the "eliminationism" with regard to America-hating liberals.
I would be a lot more comfortable if I believed that Bush was cynical.
September 13, 2006 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction:
"My opinion is that we cannot be sure that the ideological and political machine has NOT overwhelmed the policy machine entirely"
September 13, 2006 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rating the corrected post.
That's my nightmare, too. I would rather believe these are Machiavellian geniuses but I am afraid they are obssessed idiots.
September 13, 2006 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, let's not discuss. The question of the extent to which each motivates Bush -- lying in the interest of political gain, radical ideology, cronyism and debts to the rich, a warped conception of faith, stupidity, the beliefs of others manipulating an empty chair, blah, blah, blah -- look, it's fun after enough beers. But doesn't Blumenthal's history raise more interesting questions for us to discuss?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 13, 2006 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
How much bigger will the elephant get before this bunch leaves office.
On orders from the White House and Congress, the Internal Revenue Service is cutting nearly half of the 345 agents who audit tax returns of the wealthiest among us. This move will specifically benefit those who are subject to gift and estate taxes.
September 13, 2006 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post sounds like "the facts have a distinct liberal bias".
The staff at the CIA is a tool that somehow functioned pretty well for each and every president until they were confronted with being told to distort the facts facts they generate. This is not "policy", and any resistance that was shown is entirely appropriate. Bush's attempts to put policy [derived from same root as "politics"] into the running of the CIA is a danger to this country in the long run. Bush's policy was not consistant with the facts, and his attempts to change the facts rather than his policy is why we are in such a mess.
dc
September 13, 2006 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the small world department, I may have gone to high school with Sid. If anyone could get me an email address, or drop a note to him and see if he went to West Orange Mountain High School, I'd appreciate it. Interesting memories come to mind!
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
September 13, 2006 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink