AndrewSullivan.com March 18, 2002

LINK

The Reluctant President

Despite the mounds of ink expended on the current president of the United States, he's still in many ways a mystery. Before September 11, he was widely ridiculed in the press - especially abroad - as a know-nothing, word-mangling, privileged hick who barely won the election. After September 11, his measured and calm response to the attack, his handling of the international crisis, his oratorical skills, and his deft management of the military have given an altogether different impression. In a matter of months, the conventional image of Bush has been effectively whip-lashed. And now that we have a little distance from the alleged turning point of last September, the result is unnervingly incoherent. Who, after all, is the real Bush? The jokester or the statesman? The bumbler or the war leader? The cipher or the captain?

A terrific, if modest, little book, Ambling Into History, has just attempted an answer to that question and it has Washington chatting. It's by the New York Times' political reporter, Frank Bruni, who covered Bush during the election campaign. Bruni's no conservative; in fact, he's a moderately liberal man working for a left-liberal paper. But he's a good reporter and, because he wrote fair columns on Bush throughout the campaign, became a favorite of the president-to-be. Dubya called him "Panchito" - a diminutive, Spanish version of Frank. He'd pinch Panchito's cheeks, hug him from time to time, and tease him about his bosses. "At least twice, on the campaign plane," Bruni writes, "I felt someone's hands closing tight on my throat and turned around to see the outstretched arms of the future president of the United States, a devilish and delighted gleam in his eyes. He once even put his index fingers in my ears to illustrate that a comment he was about to make would be off the record. On another occasion, he grabbed the sides of my head with his hands, pressed his forehead against mine and made a sound not unlike that of a moderately exasperated pooch."

This is the goofy Bush, the man who allegedly started waving at Stevie Wonder at a recent Washington concert, only to realize his stupidity and crack up at the whole interaction. This is the Bush who started a "stickball" team at college and christened it "the Nads," so as to ensure that the chants from the stands would be "Go Nads! Go Nads!" This is the Bush who does a mean Dr. Evil impression from Austin Powers (one of his favorite movies), who "when he ate French fries, dipped them into puddles of ketchup deeper and broader than anyone over the age of twelve typically amasses," and who, when asked what he had in common with Tony Blair ventured Colgate toothpaste. One of his favorite gags was going up to bald friends and colleagues, laying his bare palms on their heads and intoning like Billy Graham, "Heal!" Like most jokes, these are all a matter of taste. But if, like me, your most treasured videos are Animal House, Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Airplane!, you might get along with the current occupant of the White House quite well.

But does this make Bush unserious or somehow dumb? On the latter question, few but hardcore Democratic partisans in Washington still dispute the man's sharp intelligence. He has mangled words, but he has hardly mangled his politics. From beating a popular incumbent governor of Texas to winning a landslide second term as governor, he kept turning his opponents into political puree. Against an incumbent vice-president who should have won in a landslide, Bush eked out a victory and, with shrewd tactics, played the post-election recount game better than Gore. Before September 11, he barely dipped below 57 percent approval ratings, and since he has barely hovered below 80 percent. This record is not that of a stupid person. And, of course, on a simple level, there was never any evidence that he was the moron he was made out to be. Bush got better marks in college than Gore or John McCain. He's a graduate of Yale and Harvard. As Bruni points out, the current president is also "a pretty steady consumer of books." Bruni admits his early dismissal of Bush's book-smarts was more prejudice than reality.

The truth is that Bush is both serious and unserious. He larks about but he also concentrates. He started prepping for his campaign debates with Gore months before they happened, and beat Gore handily in all three. His sometimes hilarious locutions are not a function of stupidity or dyslexia. They are a kind of genetic defect. His father was far worse. But no-one accused the father of stupidity. Dubya's occasional recitation of stock phrases is also not because he can't think of anything else, or doesn't know anything else. They're part of his famous ability to maintain message discipline, even at the expense of making himself look stupid. To understand his hesitancy to go off the cuff, you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone whose every word is recorded and every mistake read back to him. What's amazing in retrospect is not that he hasn't screwed up verbally plenty of times - but how few occasions there have been in which it really mattered. And then there are the simple urban legends. He is renowned for having said, for example, "Is our children learning?" One Democratic party hack even published an anti-Bush book with that as the title. What Bush actually said was, "Is ... are children learning?" He started to say one thing and then said another. By making 'are' 'our,' his opponents thought they had located his obvious weakness.

They didn't. As Bruni realized, Bush's simplicity, his gaffes, his colloquialisms, his goofing around, actually turned into a political advantage. 'I always got the sense," Bruni writes, "that his antics were in part an acknowledgement or assertion that a well-adjusted person could not approach all of the obligatory appearances, grandiose pageantry and forced gallantry toward the news media with a totally straight face. It made him likable. It made him real." Compared to the straight-laced, humorless, pious Gore, Bush was a godsend to the country's culture - a bit like electing Rory Bremner to succeed Tony Blair.

But the other side to Bruni's portrait is an underlying gravity that keeps the lightness anchored. Like many deeply religious men, Bush engages the world with a certain detachment, and that detachment can sometimes be expressed in frivolity, irony, fun, or self-mockery. There is a very bearable lightness about being Bush. But he can only be so playful because he is so anchored. He is connected to faith but also to a profound love of his country and its destiny. This connection is, like all patriotism, rooted not in the head but the heart. At one point in a summer lull in the campaign, Bush spoke with Bruni on the campaign plane and inexplicably got teary-eyed. Looking back on his campaign, he was asked about his feelings if Gore were to win. "Seriously, I would respect that. I'm not going to like it. But this is democracy," he said. He went on: "I love the system and I love the country. I love what America stands for. I don't want to sound Pollyanna-ish about it, but I do... I am so honored to be one of two coming down the stretch. I am." He meant it. And tears welled up.

One of his most memorable moments in the days after September 11 was when tears came again. He was in the Oval Office and he was asked how these events had affected him. "Well," Bush said, "I don't think about myself right now. I think about the families, the children. I am a loving guy." And his voice cracked. That's when the country bonded. And only from the depths of such sorrow can come the iron determination to see the crisis through, to ensure to the best of his ability that it would never happen again. His emotional core is connected to his lightness of spirit. He is secure in what he loves. And the very simplicity and depth of his patriotism is more in tune with most Americans than with some other members of the media or political elite. That's why the bond is so strong. And that's why it will last.

But perhaps the most striking thing about Bruni's account is its picture of an essentially reluctant president. It took Bush a long time to be reconciled to the huge sacrifices - of privacy, leisure, routine, family - that becoming president would entail. In the campaign, he'd long to get back home; he missed his children; he brought his own pillow at all times to remind him of the familiar. Even now, he loves being on his Texas ranch, he carves out immovable personal time, he is religious about his workouts, he leaves work early. This isn't merely management style. It's a statement of what's important. It's about not losing yourself, or your familiar landmarks and habits, while you enter truly unknown and terrifying territory. At an almost ridiculous level, you can see this entirely in one simple incident. One on particularly grueling campaign flight, Bush "glanced in horror at the slivers of sushi that we had been served during the flight and held his peanut butter and jelly sandwich high like a chalice. 'This is heaven, right here,' he proclaimed."

You can and probably should make fun of this. But at a deeper level, it's also revealing. Bush knows what he knows. He knows who he is. He likes who he is. And this small piece of wisdom is doubtless what keeps him sane. He has an instinctive understanding of limits, of what can and cannot be done, of the human scale by which all political achievements must be measured. It's redolent of a natural, temperamental conservatism that prefers, in Michael Oakeshott's words, "the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss." That doesn't mean that such an instinctively conservative person like Bush cannot be energetic, or wage war. In fact, I think Bush's rage at the disruption to the meaning of America on September 11 is the fuel for his ruthless determination to fight back and win. So lightness begets seriousness, detachment begets engagement, and a natural conservatism begets a determined and adventurous war. These are just some of the more interesting paradoxes of this man once dismissed as a bumbling moron. And he's only a little over a year into his first term.

-- (lars@indy.net), March 20, 2002

Answers

"Too vile to read"

--Paul Krugman, NYTimes columnist referring to Sullivan's blog

-- (lars@indy.net), March 20, 2002.

I love how the Bush-loving pundits point to his "amazing" post-9/11 approval rating as proof of his ability as President. It probably never occurred to them that the country always rallies around its president during wartime, and yes, this is wartime.

And sure, I think he's doing a good job because we were attacked and we had to respond and he did. But c'mon now, what president wouldn't respond?? You really think Gore would have done nothing? If so, then I have a bridge to sell you. Gore would have done the same damn thing and gotten the same approval rating and everyone would be saying the same dumb stuff about him now as people are saying about Bush.

Let's face it, Bush's high approval rating comes, not in spite of 9/11, but because of it. And his "oratorical skills????" Give me a break. He made the right moves in response to the 9/11 crisis, no doubt with ample assistance by Chaney, Rumsfeld, and Powell. But let's not get carried away.

-- (what@i.think), March 20, 2002.

This is the goofy Bush, the man who allegedly started waving at Stevie Wonder at a recent Washington concert, only to realize his stupidity and crack up at the whole interaction. This is the Bush who started a "stickball" team at college and christened it "the Nads," so as to ensure that the chants from the stands would be "Go Nads! Go Nads!" This is the Bush who does a mean Dr. Evil impression from Austin Powers (one of his favorite movies), who "when he ate French fries, dipped them into puddles of ketchup deeper and broader than anyone over the age of twelve typically amasses," and who, when asked what he had in common with Tony Blair ventured Colgate toothpaste. One of his favorite gags was going up to bald friends and colleagues, laying his bare palms on their heads and intoning like Billy Graham, "Heal!" Like most jokes, these are all a matter of taste. But if, like me, your most treasured videos are Animal House, Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Airplane!, you might get along with the current occupant of the White House quite well.

I love the Stevie Wonder anecdote. Anyone know if this is true? If it is true, my guess is that Stevie laughed too.

Yes, no doubt that Gore would have responded nobley to 9/11 and the country would have rallied 'round him and the flag just as they did with President Bush. The difference, to me, is that prior to 9/11, the "sophisticates" ridiculed Bush. That would not have been the case if algor had been President.

-- (lars@indy.net), March 20, 2002.

"Go Nads!"

Heh.

I like that one. :)

-- Stephen (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 20, 2002.

Bush's satisfaction with himself is not reassuring if viewed as a mark of a man who greatly overestimates his knowledge. Consider Rush Limbaugh, who is convinced he is mentally wonderful, but doesn't know shit from shinola about a whole range of subjects, from the economy to the environment.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), March 21, 2002.

Peter I don't think that Bush overestimates anything about himself. But that's just opinion on both our parts.

What, my crystal ball tells me that Gore would not have been so decisive. First he would have picked a much more liberal cabinet (rightfully his choice) who would not have had the military experience required for this war. He would have wavered on many decisions but that's how I think Gore's personality lends itself to his management style.

Frankly, I'm not sure what his approval rating would be if 9-11 hadn't happened. I think he was beginning to feel comfortable in his new position and conform to his new role. The language faux pas were lessening. His demeanor seemed less awkward. But my crystal ball still says his approval rating would have increased as time went on, of course not as rapidly as with 9-11.

Lars, vile huh? I wonder what he thought of "Bias".

-- Maria (anon@ymous.coml), March 21, 2002.

Maria, I have said in previous posts that I am glad that Bush is President as far as our response to 9-11 is concerned. And that is the most important thing for the country at this time. On the other hand, this does not mean that I think highly of him with respect to several important domestic issues.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), March 21, 2002.

US citizens really want to like their presidents. They want a president to be someone they could imagine inviting to dinner and enjoying their company. GW Bush's sense of humor sounds a bit sophomoric for my tastes, but what it all boils down to is... I don't give a flying f**k if he's as witty as JFK or as mellow as Ronald Reagan. What matters are the policies he pursues.

I can guarantee you right now, I will never clap eyes on GW Bush in the flesh. But when I go hiking in my National Forest what I find there is going to be changed for good or ill by Bush's policies. Same goes for the implementation of the PATRIOT Act, the labels on food, and the safety of prescription drugs. A thousand things are already beginning to reflect GW Bush's ideas about how the government ought to be run.

I can tell you right now, his open-ended "War on Terror" may be the highest risk activity he's engaged in, but the verdict isn't in on that, yet. So far, he's doing OK. But his environmental and tax policies look like hell to me so far, and worse hell is in the works. If he'd reverse himself on the future of the EDA, enforcement of the Clean Air Act, signing the Kyoto Treaty, and so on, then he could give me a wedgie every day for a year and call me "Nipwad" and still like him better than I do today.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 21, 2002.

But the Taliban drive those polluting SUVs. Talk about open-ended terror!

Gotta head off to Antarctica to watch the ice-shelf collapse.

-- (lars@indy.net), March 21, 2002.

Can we still call you "Nipwad?"

-- (please@oh.please), March 21, 2002.

GW Bush's sense of humor sounds a bit sophomoric for my tastes, but what it all boils down to is... I don't give a flying f**k if he's as witty as JFK or as mellow as Ronald Reagan.

Yep, you sound real highbrow to me.

Pickin' at a zit,

Barfsy

-- barfsy (hiding@at.Macy's), March 22, 2002.

Speaking of JFK, I caught the middle of some movie last night, *the rat pack*, with a portrayal of JFK, Bobby, brother-in-law, Peter, and of course ol' blue eyes. JFK comes off very 'sophisticated' (isn't that the term liberals like in describing themselves?) but when I look behind the curtain I don't see anything but a bigoted womanizer who thought more about looking good than being good. He had no clue how to deal with Cuba or foreign policies. When I ask myself how could America elect him, I recall how close the race was and his very questionable voting tactics. Sorry, I can't think of any reason this man should have been President. Ok enough of my opinion.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 22, 2002.

Sorry, I can't think of any reason this man should have been President.

Because the other choice was Nixon.

-- (w@asnt.it?), March 22, 2002.

My crystal ball tells me he would have been much better at the job than JFK. JFK through mob connections stole the election. I think this really drove Nixon into some deep paranoia which had cost him his presidency. Nixon was ten times smarter than JFK, more experienced at national affairs, and a serious minded administrator. What can you say about JFK?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 28, 2002.

See the movie "Dick" out on video. You'll laugh your ass off!

-- heehee (cin@cin.cin), March 28, 2002.

That he probably slept with Marilyn Monroe.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), March 28, 2002.

My crystal ball tells me he would have been much better at the job than JFK.

You don't need a crystal ball. Nixon actually became President.

JFK through mob connections stole the election.

And you have evidence of this, of course.

I think this really drove Nixon into some deep paranoia which had cost him his presidency.

Ah, I see. So, it wasn't really Nixon's fault that he tried to fix an election and destroy the evidence, it was really JFK's fault! JFK made him do it, ya see. I thought Republicans were supposed to be really into that "personal responsibility" thing.

Nixon was ten times smarter than JFK, more experienced at national affairs, and a serious minded administrator. What can you say about JFK?

Al Gore was ten times smarter than G W Bush, more experienced at national affairs, and a serious minded administrator. What can you say about G W Bush?

-- (what@i.think), March 28, 2002.

The nearest we ever came to all-out nuclear war was the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 under JFK. Did he handle it well? Yes (I think). Would Nixon have avoided this frightening confrontation altogether? Who knows?

Poor Marilyn, she was boinking JFK and then RFK (I have pics). Ah, sweet camelot.

-- (lars@indy.net), March 28, 2002.

My crystal ball tells me he would have been much better at the job than JFK.

"You don't need a crystal ball. Nixon actually became President." Please learn to read. I said that if Nixon won in 1960 (hence my comparison to JFK, he would be better. I wasn't referring to his job that he actually took, in 1968. Yes, thank you for stating the obvious history lesson. Nixon actually took office!

"And you have evidence of this, of course." Once again you fail to read. I'm looking through my crystal ball, no evidence required. I'm not talking about any facts here, just pure speculation on my part, hence my preface to the entire paragraph. Let me repeat it here for you, since you forgot. MY CRYSTAL BALL TELLS ME. If you don't want to speculate, then you don't need to respond.

"Ah, I see. So, it wasn't really Nixon's fault that he tried to fix an election and destroy the evidence, it was really JFK's fault! JFK made him do it, ya see. I thought Republicans were supposed to be really into that "personal responsibility" thing." Once again my time machine goes back to 1960. But if you want to talk about responsibility, then history does tell us that Nixon took responsibility and resigned in utter humiliation. Can't take more responsibility than that. I was only speculating (not laying blame on Mr. Camelot) that Nixon wouldn't have gone major paranoia. Again just my crystal ball here.

Nixon was ten times smarter than JFK, more experienced at national affairs, and a serious minded administrator. What can you say about JFK? I noticed you didn't answer the question, just pointing out the obvious, that is, my speculation is not fact.

"What can you say about G W Bush?" That he is just as smart as Gore, if not smarter. That he's handled the war much better than Gore could have. That he does have as much experience as Gore, surrounding himself with better advisors than Gore would have.

But I'm just talking speculation. It seems you're talking fact. Prove Gore is ten times smarter, more experienced, and a good administrator.

Lars, I think that Nixon would have done better at that crisis. I don't think he would have frightened the public to the point of running drills to hide under desks. I think the Soviet Union was playing with Kennedy and Kennedy blinked. My crystal ball says that Nixon would not have.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 28, 2002.

More of my crystal ball...

"The nearest we ever came to all-out nuclear war." The more accurate statement is "The nearest we ever came to all-out nuclear war that the public is aware of." That, I think, was Kennedy's inexperience showing. He had no clue how to react. He made it public when it shouldn't have been. No amount of hiding under desks could save a public from nuclear attack. Then of course, the bomb shelter industry took off. Hindsight is 20-20 but it shows that Soviet Union had no intention of pushing the button. We know now that they couldn't have afforded to. I think that Nixon would have seen through the ruse. I think he would have been more direct with the leadership and not have gone to the higher defcon levels.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 28, 2002.

My crystal ball says that Maria's crystal ball will always find that anything said or done by a Republican will prove to be good, while anything said or done by a Democrat will prove to be bad. It must be comforting to live in such a binary world.

-- (what@i.think), March 30, 2002.

More of my crystal ball...

Had Nixon won the election against Kennedy, he would have launched nukes at Cuba and the Soviets would have destroyed us, leaving everyone DEAD. Nixon would have survived in an underground bunker, where he and the corpse of Adolph Hitler would have traveled to the Soviet Union to become citizens of their nation before he singlehandedly murdered all of their children with a pickaxe.

I had it all wrong. This crystal ball stuff is cool. Expect to hear more from my balls soon! Ha ha!

-- (what@i.think), March 30, 2002.

Please learn to read. I said that if Nixon won in 1960

Oh, by the way, perhaps you can point out where you said "if Nixon won in 1960." LOL

-- (what@i.think), March 30, 2002.