Nbadan
11-20-2004, 03:49 AM
Fri Nov 19th, 2004 at 09:38:01 PST
Those of us who've spent at least five minutes thinking about the family dynamics of the Bush dynasty have almost all concluded that one of George W. Bush's strongest personal motivations is to show up his dad. Unlike his father, Dubya never served in combat, so he seems compelled to prove to his dad he's sufficiently bellicose. Unlike his father, he's never accepted responsibility for anything, including his class privileges. (In at least one way Prescott Bush appears to have been a better father than his son George HW Bush, because George HW Bush appears to have lived by the earlier generation's ethos of noblesse oblige, but he apparently never inculcated it in his son George W Bush, who probably thinks the term noblesse oblige is Frenchish for "atheist gay communist.")
And in too many instances, he's openly defied his father's positions and policies, be it internationalism, respect for the intelligence agencies, the occasional necessity to raise or at least not lower taxes, and most obviously in regard to invading and occupying Iraq.
Filial rivalry and rejection seems an obvious factor in George W. Bush's actions and beliefs. But until reading Bob Herbert's column this morning, I had never associated filial rivalry and rejection with which staff Bush relies on and with whom he allies himself. Herbert suggests it is, and his exhibit A is Condoleezza Rice:
A crucial mentor for Ms. Rice was Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser for the first President Bush. He appointed her to the National Security Council in 1989. Ms. Rice and the nation would have benefited if she had sought out and followed Mr. Scowcroft's counsel on Iraq.
Mr. Scowcroft's view, widely expressed before the war, was that the U.S. should exercise extreme caution. He did not believe the planned invasion was wise or necessary. In an article in The Wall Street Journal in August 2002, he wrote:
"There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them."
Ms. Rice exhibited as little interest in Mr. Scowcroft's opinion as George W. Bush did in his father's. (When Bob Woodward asked Mr. Bush if he had consulted with the former president about the decision to invade Iraq, he replied, "There is a higher father that I appeal to.")
This got me thinking about filial rejection as an underlying mindset for way too many of the Bushies. Ari Fliecher and his Democratic parents. Dick Cheney, who's dad was a federal civil servant and whose mentors included the eminently decent Gerald Ford. Donald Rumsfeld, a Congressional ally of Ford's, and an aide to Nixon. And Karl Rove...well, there's way too much material there for a quick psycho-political assessment.
I've long thought of the neocons as approaching politics like a graduate seminar, where the goal is to distinguish oneself with flashy rhetoric and verbal gamesmanship, preferably by constructing and then demolishing straw man arguments. But Herbert may be on to something: this administration, especially in terms of its foreign and defense policy, may be a big exercise in saying screw you to, in addition to most of the world and nearly half the country, the administration members' own elders, mentors, and parents.
As I watch the disastrous consequences of the Bush policies unfold - not just in Iraq, but here at home as well - I am struck by the immaturity of this administration, whatever the ages of the officials involved. It's as if the children have taken over and sent the adults packing. The counsel of wiser heads, like George H. W. Bush, or Brent Scowcroft, or Colin Powell, is not needed and not wanted.
Some of the world's most important decisions - often, decisions of life and death - have been left to those who are less competent and less experienced, to men and women who are deficient in such qualities as risk perception and comprehension of future consequences, who are reckless and dangerously susceptible to magical thinking and the ideological pressure of their peers.
I look at the catastrophe in Iraq, the fiscal debacle here at home, the extent to which loyalty trumps competence at the highest levels of government, the absence of a coherent vision of the future for the U.S. and the world, and I wonder, with a sense of deep sadness, where the adults have gone?
Daily Kos (http://dailykos.com/)
Those of us who've spent at least five minutes thinking about the family dynamics of the Bush dynasty have almost all concluded that one of George W. Bush's strongest personal motivations is to show up his dad. Unlike his father, Dubya never served in combat, so he seems compelled to prove to his dad he's sufficiently bellicose. Unlike his father, he's never accepted responsibility for anything, including his class privileges. (In at least one way Prescott Bush appears to have been a better father than his son George HW Bush, because George HW Bush appears to have lived by the earlier generation's ethos of noblesse oblige, but he apparently never inculcated it in his son George W Bush, who probably thinks the term noblesse oblige is Frenchish for "atheist gay communist.")
And in too many instances, he's openly defied his father's positions and policies, be it internationalism, respect for the intelligence agencies, the occasional necessity to raise or at least not lower taxes, and most obviously in regard to invading and occupying Iraq.
Filial rivalry and rejection seems an obvious factor in George W. Bush's actions and beliefs. But until reading Bob Herbert's column this morning, I had never associated filial rivalry and rejection with which staff Bush relies on and with whom he allies himself. Herbert suggests it is, and his exhibit A is Condoleezza Rice:
A crucial mentor for Ms. Rice was Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser for the first President Bush. He appointed her to the National Security Council in 1989. Ms. Rice and the nation would have benefited if she had sought out and followed Mr. Scowcroft's counsel on Iraq.
Mr. Scowcroft's view, widely expressed before the war, was that the U.S. should exercise extreme caution. He did not believe the planned invasion was wise or necessary. In an article in The Wall Street Journal in August 2002, he wrote:
"There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them."
Ms. Rice exhibited as little interest in Mr. Scowcroft's opinion as George W. Bush did in his father's. (When Bob Woodward asked Mr. Bush if he had consulted with the former president about the decision to invade Iraq, he replied, "There is a higher father that I appeal to.")
This got me thinking about filial rejection as an underlying mindset for way too many of the Bushies. Ari Fliecher and his Democratic parents. Dick Cheney, who's dad was a federal civil servant and whose mentors included the eminently decent Gerald Ford. Donald Rumsfeld, a Congressional ally of Ford's, and an aide to Nixon. And Karl Rove...well, there's way too much material there for a quick psycho-political assessment.
I've long thought of the neocons as approaching politics like a graduate seminar, where the goal is to distinguish oneself with flashy rhetoric and verbal gamesmanship, preferably by constructing and then demolishing straw man arguments. But Herbert may be on to something: this administration, especially in terms of its foreign and defense policy, may be a big exercise in saying screw you to, in addition to most of the world and nearly half the country, the administration members' own elders, mentors, and parents.
As I watch the disastrous consequences of the Bush policies unfold - not just in Iraq, but here at home as well - I am struck by the immaturity of this administration, whatever the ages of the officials involved. It's as if the children have taken over and sent the adults packing. The counsel of wiser heads, like George H. W. Bush, or Brent Scowcroft, or Colin Powell, is not needed and not wanted.
Some of the world's most important decisions - often, decisions of life and death - have been left to those who are less competent and less experienced, to men and women who are deficient in such qualities as risk perception and comprehension of future consequences, who are reckless and dangerously susceptible to magical thinking and the ideological pressure of their peers.
I look at the catastrophe in Iraq, the fiscal debacle here at home, the extent to which loyalty trumps competence at the highest levels of government, the absence of a coherent vision of the future for the U.S. and the world, and I wonder, with a sense of deep sadness, where the adults have gone?
Daily Kos (http://dailykos.com/)