What Kind of Man is George Bush, And What is He Up To?

Gone are the days when we could wonder, half facetiously, if President Bush was as stupid as he seemed, or if he just thought the rest of us were stupid. Over the years a clearer, more nuanced picture of the man has emerged. Albeit deeply ignorant and intolerant, Bush is nevertheless clever in his own way, and able to use his charisma to his own advantage. He's in some sense a puppet, in thrall to the forceful, intelligent men, such as Cheney and Rumsfeld, who surround him, but in another sense he is indeed his own man. This comes out best in his fanatical loyalty to his class, the super rich, even where this might be to his personal political disadvantage, and even to the disadvantage of his party, as is the case in cutting taxes on the wealthy and running up the deficit in time of war. So certain is Bush of the moral rectitude of such measures, that he is able to project this assurance in his speech and mannerisms, and--though I for one still find it hard to believe--he seems to have been able to bamboozle a large percentage of the populace.

The war in Iraq, which most everyone views as a horrible mistake by this point, is threatening to expand beyond the boundaries of that country to encompass Iran, and perhaps the entire middle east. Bush seems to have totally lost control of the situation: in Iraq, and in terms of foreign policy as a whole. But are things really so out of control?

George Bush learned anti-communism from an early age, and saw how advantageous it was to his family and his class. In addition to being the party of the rich, the Republican party is the party of fear; but since the end of the cold war, the fear of gays and women and minorities has proved a poor substitute for the fear of communism. That's why Bush and the Republicans needed Iraq, and it's significant that they had begun talk of this war even before 9-11 (which of course had nothing to do with Iraq). And it's also why they need to complicate the situation by going after other countries. Most likely it's long been their intension to start a war on terrorism--a scary-sounding, alien ideology, much like communism in that respect--or better yet a war on Islam, which is really the subtext here. Was it the ignorant side of Bush that spoke of a crusade, or were his words a bit more calculating?

Now I know what you're going to say: it's a big problem when countries like Iran and North Korea get nuclear weapons. But in retrospect it's entirely predictable that little countries such as these, when they feel threatened, will start to saber-rattle. It's the same thing that happened with Saddam Hussein: we threatened, he threatened back. Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so why should we believe him about Iran? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm asking: has the situation changed in some way? Is our intelligence better in this case, less prone to political manipulation? Let's decide before we follow our president blindly once again.

There's something in the original dichotomy after all: is Bush stupid or does he think we're stupid? His policies concerning torture and illegal renditions--all but unimaginable in a civilized nation--are perhaps also not quite the work of ignorance. These policies seem in effect deliberately crafted to frighten and provoke our Islamic neighbors. And Bush escapes blame by playing dumb.

I think the tendency, despite the knowledge of experience, is not to take Bush the man seriously, to dismiss him as a buffoon and say, ah well, only three more years. But it's a mistake for the Democrats not to do all in their power to stop him now. A lot of damage can be done in three years, and the world situation will no doubt be a lot worse when Bush leaves office. And the Democrats, even on the off chance they do win the presidency, are not going to be able to get us out of the war--either the smaller war in Iraq, or the larger war on terror--since they will refuse to give up, and there's no way to win. For what will a victory look like: every remnant of the opposition beaten into submission? Every insurgent killed or imprisoned? Every last vestige of dissent strangled out? The war on terror will be Bush's legacy to America.

Hotel Chelsea Blog