The Wall Street Journal created a bit of a flutter this week by coming out and putting into direct words ideas that many otherwise supportive Republicans have been feeling of late. Namely, that far too long, President Bush has carried on with nearly the exact same team that he entered office with, and this despite a barrage of crises and a full-blown war which are the types of events that generally require a culling process to bring unique talent to the fore.
Consider: even after 9/11 for the longest time there was no obvious change in personnel or methodology from the George Tenet tenure, apart from the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Yet a continuation of "things and people as they were" after a major catastrophic event does not breed confidence, but concern and doubt. It suggests a failure to adapt and learn. The Pearl Harbor debacle was followed by several sackings and re-shufflings of command by FDR, which is what one would expect. Except in cases of truly exceptional talent deliberately retained (MacArthur after the fall of the Philippines, for example), history has shown that setbacks are best followed by some re-shuffling and resignations to show the public that steps are being taken to prevent recurrence, and that new voices probably ignored till now, are being given a chance to be heard.
We are now into the third year of a war in Iraq that while showing distinct promise and a worthy venture, clearly suffers from inertia from some initial wrong decisions on both how to prosecute the war, and what strength level to devote to it, as well as an abject failure to address the public relations side of the failure to clearly account for the WMD claims fiasco. This has been abdicated to the purview of the cable news and talk radio, with little direction and clear speech from the White House public relations sector. Not even the illusion of accountability for the mis-carriage has been provided, or the impression what caused it rectified or at least now understood. It doesn't seem to be realized the serious undermining effects this has as the White House seeks to step up pressure on Iran at home and in Europe with similar references to intelligence and threat danger.
But even aside from the question of credibility in the Iran warnings, the failure to make changes, yes "to fire" when needed, has had a corrosive effect overall. One thing most expected of leadership is to make sure that the right subordinates are in charge. In roundtables and discussions, as well as routinely heard on radio call-ins, its becoming clear that an increasingly large block of Republican voters, and conservatives, and any number of supporters of the administration are becoming very dissatisfied with the lack of `new blood' and any effort to restore vigor and new dynamics to the last part of the second term. There seems a baffling willingness to let confidence shrink to the point where a true lame-duck presidency is now possible, and this despite the fact that ALL three branches of government are under the same party's control. Its truly amazing.
The Dubai ports deal fiasco ---- fiasco in how it was handled, not the fact of its existence -- seems to have proven something of a last straw, and many even among the right-wing openly opposed the administration response, and a split even formed with the Republican held Congress. From Katrina to the Dubai ports deal, and the recent upheaval of sectarian disorder in Iraq, all are congealing to give a picture of a certain and peculiar degree of inattentiveness at best, and obstinance at worst.
It is significant that Brown's firing after Katrina was almost the only clear case of such change, despite the fact that history shows that after a major debacle like 9/11, the Iraq insurgency, Katrina, etc, that for purposes of morale and re-igniting public confidence, obvious and clear changes in staff and those-in-charge should be made by the Executive. The public relations part of this is far more crucial than the actual fact of `just who is to blame-for-what' that tends to tie up thinking. It distracts from the fact that first and foremost, `new blood' and vigor should be appointed to break any perception of inertia, and most especially, to avoid any impression of no changes or repairs made, or lessons learned. Nothing looks as bad as doing nothing different, no personnel shake-ups, after clear setbacks. In most cases, it is in fact, unwise. Often personnel DO have a correlation to such failures, and changes are a way to come back from them.
The Wall Street Journal has simply come out and declared what has been on the minds of many disappointed supporters of Bush's re-election and who do not want to see the second term needlessly reduced to a `lame duck' status that endangers the overall position after 2008 by not responding to the need for new spark and inspiration.
The lightning-rod relationship between VP Cheney and Halliburton, whether one believes it a fabrication and shrill overstatement of some of the media and pundits or not, continues to needlessly undermine and weaken the perception of integrity of the goals. The over-emphasis on secrecy doesn't help here, but is appropriate in military circles where it is not in the civilian Executive. For this reasons it would not be a bad idea for Cheney to move to the SecDef position as the WSJ suggests, for he could bring great force to it, and Condoleeza Rice installed as VP might have opportunity to both cultivate a sense of how much support she might get for a Presidential run, and ideally, to have that possibility "grow" on her, by the proximity and hint of it that the VP's office would provide. She has said she isn't that interested in running, and yet, a stint as VP might allow her the perspective to reconsider. The possibilities of her running in 2008 are important enough to do all that can be done to make it more easier and plausible.
A similar case may hold with SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. The perception that a more massive and stronger hand in Iraq is needed is growing, right alongside the idea of those advocating withdrawal and downsizing. What this means is an important fact that has been overlooked -- those for the war and those opposed have actually reached an unrealized consensus: They are in fact two sides of the same coin - the present course is seen as `too lean' and `unfocused' to properly midwife the new Iraqi nation; to the point where either a stronger hand is needed, or that hand must draw back entirely.
These are just some thoughts. What Wall Street advocates in the administration leadership may be more changes than are necessary, more `shaking up' than is warranted. Yet the falling out with its own Congressional leads is a clear warning that the basis for unity is fraying, patience worn thin. What is clear, is the main point: some visual change in the cabinet prosecuting the war and even domestic policy is clearly needed, for an all levels, the present arrangement and combination around President Bush has about exhausted its reservoir of confidence.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
For too long the current admin has nurtured the impression of a certain type of anti-intellectualism that is meant to appeal to a part of its Republican base, the part that views university-level thought suspiciously (in some cases, with good reason). Bush has portrayed himself as an aw-shucks homey type of man who is loyal, even to a fault, an image meant to appeal to down-home folks in a rather insulting way. I can only guess that that loyalty is meant to look old-fashioned noble.
What this admin has forgotten (so did Clinton’s) is that democracy largely rests on confidence in the government. Combining to this egalitarianism, relativism, and lack of proper civics education among the citizenry, and we have a situation where appearances matter more than ever, where faith in the government has to be maintained through the appearance that the public’s desires (for in these overwrought, emotional, relativistic times, that is the correct word) are being followed. Bush seems to have a strong distaste for Clinton’s penchant for confessional-style speeches and expressions that I am grateful for, but if only he’d adopt a bit of Clinton’s think-tank style.
Since FDR was mentioned, I’m reminded of a book I was recently flipping through that detailed the measures FDR undertook to conceal the fact that his body had been wracked by polio (or Guillain-Barré Syndrome, if one believes a recent post-hoc diagnosis). And here we have our current president who has boasted about not reading newspapers, who relishes an image that portrays him as naturally incurious (though it may just be that he only seeks to re-confirm his own views in his non-intellectual wanderings). Due to the stature of the office, similar to physical handicaps, intellectual ones should likewise be concealed, and the braininess of one’s advisors certainly shouldn’t be diminished. Rice was a Stanford professor for nearly 20 years and its Provost for 6 of those years, but you would never get that impression based on the admin’s spin.
When this is combined with the admin’s refusal to “turnover” its posts in the face of failures, it projects the image of an admin that is both myopic and consumed with keeping those in power “in power” regardless of effectiveness. When people speak of the Bush “empire,” this is, I think, what the sensible among them mean. Not that the country resembles an empire, but that this admin, with its entrenched guard and leadership that functions in an air of imperviousness and lack of accountability (as expressed in democratic leadership), it behaves like one. It behooves someone on the Bush team to re-think quaint political loyalty with a strong whiff of arrogance as strategy.
psych's 5:06 strikes a particularly important note. Namely, the peculiar disregard this administration shows for the need to nurture and keep public confidence.
Like psych pointed out, this especially necessary in a democracy, where so much of direction of the public space is now determined by impressionistic forces like hyperbolic headlines and glitzy talking point banners and `segments' on TV commentator shows.
The host certainly agrees with this poster's remark that like FDR's physical handicap, intellectual handicaps or shortcomings in speech delivery should not be so readily accepted without some attempt at gloss. After all, in public relations, an administration, and particularly the President, is in truth having to fulfill an archetypal and symbolic role. A role that must convey both a sense of leadership, and control of a situation.
This is not served well by an appearance of anti-intellectualism and certainly not by an appearance of anti-accountability. The failures to make clear changes or rethink certain policies begin to appear mulelish and stubborn, rather than bold and dedicated.
The poster's statement that it is this semi-defiant and aloof air that just MAY be the reason the charges of `empire' are in fact rife. I must say, there appears something in this suggestion. For we don't see much of the decisiveness and clear identification of enemies and goals one associates with an `empire'. But we do see a `court-like' atmosphere that puts partisan stances above the larger interest, just as you find in more servile courts.
On this note, it is interesting to see that noted Iraq blogger Michael Yon just now had to point out that:
"Last week, in America, a radio producer for a large syndicated program in the United States called me requesting that I go on the show, a show that has hosted me many times and where I’ve been referred to as, “Our man in Iraq.” But when I said Iraq is in a civil war, that same producer slammed down the phone and, in so doing, demonstrated how much he reveres truth....When the receiver slammed into the phone, the producer revealed himself naked; he was not supporting the troops, nor the Iraqis, but the President."
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/
Regrettably, this does indeed seem to be the atmosphere that is being created just now, so that you have divided camps that either are opposed and hate or support and admire the war policy, but both doing so rather blindly and along partisan lines with no attempt to discern the real parameters of the truth of the situation.
It remains to be seen whether the breaking news of charges of online misconduct with a minor levelled at a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security will in any way wake officials up to the need to polish up and rinse their public relations image. As it stands now, it is increasingly alienating even to their supporters.
- Anthony
Post a Comment