A fascinating interview with Doug Wead, who was a liaison between the 1988 Bush campaign and the evangelical communities and an early sounding board for George W. Bush.
I have finally read Bush at War, Bob Woodward's application of his patented you-are-there-right-now technique to the workings of the Bush White House after September 11. As with all of Woodward's books, it is a compelling and breezy read. A good sign about it is that I doubt its contents would surprise either Bush's supporters or his detractors were they to read (or re-read) it today; the book strikes me as a basically accurate rendering that can be interpreted in a number of ways.
In the book, Bush comes across best in Woodward's account (chapter 18) of the second-guessing of the American plan for the Afghan war in late October 2001. When the initial bombing of the Taliban positions seemed to be failing, and the administration faced mounting criticism, Bush stood behind his people, reminded them that the plan they had was the best one available, and urged them to make it work. Two weeks later, Taliban resistance crumbled.
A much less impressive view of the president—an insight that explains this press conference—can be found on pages 144-146:
"One of my jobs is to be provocative," [Bush] said, "seriously, to provoke people into—to force decisions, and to make sure it's clear in everybody's mind where we're headed. […]"
[…]
So provocation was going to be one tool. Did he explain or warn Rice or the other war cabinet members that he was testing, planning on being provocative?
"Of course not. I'm the commander—see, I don't need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
Several years ago, I read Encountering Bigotry: Befriending Projecting Persons in Everyday Life, a book that is now out of print.
I came across my notes from the book, and thought they might be of interest:
People make bigoted remarks because they are dealing with more emotional turmoil than they can handle, and are looking for support. The remarks that they make are usually projections—they project onto other people the traits they cannot bear to see in themselves. By making bigoted remarks to you, they try to win you to their side of a supposed "us vs. them" dichotomy.
These invitations should be rejected, because the sense of solidarity that arises from them is debased and sterile; an empty shell of true friendship.
However, it is important not to reject the person as you reject the person's invitation—what the other person needs most is to be treated as a peer, and to have his pain taken seriously. Every projection contains some truth, and your response should respect that.
Bad ways to respond to bigoted remarks include: confronting the person, denying the person's stated experience, withdrawing from the person, confirming the projection, and reacting too quickly.
Instead, focus your response on the here-and-now rather than on abstractions about other people; talk to the person rather than about an out-group. Accept and support the person. Do not demand that the person change, but do address the person's actions. Invite the person to tell the story behind his hatreds, and be willing to share similar stories (with different conclusions, of course!).
Finally, don't pretend to be a better person than you are or a better person than the other person—doing so only feeds the other person's anger and self-hatred.
Harry Boswell has "some thoughts about gas prices":
When you bought your enormous SUV with the huge V-8 engine, there was a sticker on the window. That gas mileage number on the sticker? It meant something. Stop whining.
In his article "The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged", George Packer notes that "bloggers are almost unfailingly contemptuous toward everyone except one another".
I have noticed that blogs (including this one) tend to be negative, snarky, cynical, accusatory, etc. I wonder if that's because anger and unhappiness provide the energy and motivation to write something—write a complaint, write a lament—to relieve our tension; whereas joy and happiness leave us relaxed and blissfully mute.
Someone wrote recently that the best indicator that a large newspaper is good is that it does without an ombudsman. Why? Because good newspapers hire good editors. Good editors keep around competent reporters. Competent reporters don't need an ombudsman to clean up after them.
Successories® are the ombudsmen of an office: The sign that something is wrong.
If your employees seem to need a cloying reminder to have a good attitude, or work together, or serve their customers, then what does that say about the training they've received, the company they work for, or (let's face it) the manager they have?
And if you yourself need a Successories® sign at work, then shouldn't you consider doing something else with your life; something where your enthusiasm alone would sustain you, without being propped up by cheap sentiment?
A quote you'll never find on a Successories® product is the quote they remind me of: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
(To be fair to Successories®, there are worse things a boss can do than tack up one of those posters. For example, if your boss ever gives complimentary copies of this book to you and your co-workers…freshen up your resumé. Now.)
(And, by the way, these are pretty funny.)
Since February 3, John Kerry has collected $134,557 in the Amazon primary, while George W. Bush has collected $31,030.
Since April 10, the Kerry advantage has been $34,137 to $6,782.
The blog Belmont Club has kept up a running commentary from late April through now on the military situation in Fallujah. It argues that the situation is nowhere near as bleak as the press is portraying it. Worth reading.
In 1999, facing the prospect of Governor Bush as President, I read the definitive biography of Warren G. Harding to begin to understand what a Bush presidency would be like.
People forget that Harding was a popular president: A handsome man with an attractive personality; a man who looked like a leader, but lived like one of the boys.
Only after Harding's death—when it was revealed how oblivious the President was to the corruption of his administration—did people realize how out of his depth Harding was in the White House. Since the late 1920s, Harding's presidency has been justly judged a failure.
One of the best takes on the similar failure of the Bush presidency is a recent post by Kevin Drum:
Bush styles himself a "CEO president," but the world is full to bursting with CEOs who have goals they would dearly love to attain but who lack either the skill or the fortitude to make them happen. […]
George Bush is, fundamentally, a mediocre CEO, the kind of insulated leader who's convinced that his instincts are all he needs. Unfortunately, like many failed CEOs before him, he's about to learn that being sure you're right isn't the same thing as actually being right.
So sure: George Bush is genuinely committed to winning in Iraq. He just doesn't know how to do it and doesn't have the skills, experience, or personality to look beyond his own instincts in order to figure it out. America is about to pay a heavy price for that.
Karl Marx was wrong. The first time was the farce. This time is the tragedy.
(Mark Schmitt writes a follow-up to Kevin's post.)
I hate to think of myself as being part of "an eccentric fringe", but Johann Hari makes a good point about the death of Burkean conservatism in his article about the philosophy of Agatha Christie.
(Also: Hari notices that "The minute a character is described as an idealist […] you've found your murderer." A good observation. Actors were automatically suspect as well.)
[Link courtesy of Arts & Letters Daily.]
Mark Schmitt points out a couple of innovative ways in which the Bush administration is treating the United States government as an extension of the Republican Party.
Mark Hasty asks a good question: "Why [can't you] just major in football, basketball, hockey, etc., in college?"
And you know something is happening, but you don't know what it is…
Looking at the Rasmussen Reports presidential tracking poll, I wonder whether this year's election will be like World War I trench warfare: interminable, unspeakably ugly, and nearly static; lit up by volley after volley of television ads.