[Kerrigan]

Andrew Sullivan has provided a very good analysis of Bush, with regards to his family history, and his intentions in Iraq.

This article is especially good because it reads like literary criticism: Shakespeare references, psychoanalytical interpretations, and political anecdotes are used to explain a lot about Bush, and how this election plays into the greater scheme of things.

That way son - Sunday Times - Times Online

Last week George W Bush was forced back — once again — to the protective arms of his father. They call the first President Bush “Poppy” in the family, and it captures both the authority and the slight daffiness of the 41st president. His first son always lived in his shadow — both deeply admiring him and deeply resenting him, the way dauphins often do their monarchs.

In summary, Sullivan explains how the bold W Bush wanted strongly to differentiate himself from prudent 'Poppy' Bush, especially by taking a bolder initiative in Iraq, and how the American voters have forced Bush to adopt the more reasonable strategies of his father, as evidenced by Bush bringing Gates and Baker on board to help out with Iraq.

I have always been a fan of George H W Bush, and I'm happy to see that the W is finally being forced into listening to his father's advisors, who actually have a grip on reality.

[Nicko]

To use a LotR analogy.

Bush allied himself with Saruman of Many Colours in the Tower of Orthanc, when he really should have been true to Sauron and the Dark Tower of Mordor. The fact that he did not suspect a band of Hobbits, Drawfs, and Mortal Men would ultimately bring him down is his true failing.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

To use a LotR analogy.

Bush allied himself with Saruman of Many Colours in the Tower of Orthanc, when he really should have been true to Sauron and the Dark Tower of Mordor. The fact that he did not suspect a band of Hobbits, Drawfs, and Mortal Men would ultimately bring him down is his true failing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Wow, a personal attack. And from you, the dude who is extra-vigilant against such things.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wow, a personal attack. And from you, the dude who is extra-vigilant against such things.

I didn't think it was such. But in considering your point of view I felt if you thought it was an attack maybe I should re-think it.

[Ron Goodman]

I like the way Mareen Dowd put it in her column the other day better:

"Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back."

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

I like the way Mareen Dowd put it in her column the other day better:

"Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back."

Or, to quote something I saw on another board, "the country finally realized that you don't have to go to war with the secdef you have instead of the secdef you wished you had."

[dcmacdaddy]

Looks like others share Andrew Sullivan's sentiments. From today's Washington Post.



<edited to add>
And another for Bush Sr. He knew what he was doing in Iraq.

[Kerrigan]

Newsweek is also running a piece which shares this same point. Unfortunately it is Newsweek so it is dumbed down a bit, and I'd rather people just read Sullivan's article.

Originally Posted by Sullivan

If you want to know why Bush Jr held onto Rumsfeld longer than any sane person should have, one clue lies in the paternal relationship. Surrendering Rumsfeld means that Poppy was right. Not just right about Rumsfeld’s skills and nasty streak. Right about the biggest things: war and peace, country and honour. Rummy was in some ways the personification of the son’s refusal to be his father. Rummy was the prickly, querulous, impolitic businessman, everything Poppy was not.

By picking one of his father’s old nemeses to head the Pentagon in 2000, W was also telling the old man to stay out of his affairs. And Poppy did. As Woodward also recounts, Bush Sr told his friend Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia: “I had my turn. It is his turn now. I just have to stay off the stage . . . I will not make any comment vis-à-vis this president, not only out of principle but to let him be himself.”

W was indeed himself, which makes the failure now that much harder. Last week was a moment of complete humiliation. Wednesday, for Bush Jr, must have been the most crushing psychological moment in his presidency.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And another for Bush Sr. He knew what he was doing in Iraq.

Well, he wasn't in Iraq. He was in Kuwait, and he didn't do much beyond chase Iraqi soldiers past the border. He was much more politically shrewd than his son; when the images of a road of charred soldiers began to hit the press (so vividly reconstructed in Jarhead, you might remember), he basically shut down any option of continuing on to Baghdad, which many people in the administration wanted.

Whether that was one of the largest mistakes in his Presidency or not remains for you to decide.

greg

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well, he wasn't in Iraq. He was in Kuwait, and he didn't do much beyond chase Iraqi soldiers past the border. He was much more politically shrewd than his son; when the images of a road of charred soldiers began to hit the press (so vividly reconstructed in Jarhead, you might remember), he basically shut down any option of continuing on to Baghdad, which many people in the administration wanted.

Whether that was one of the largest mistakes in his Presidency or not remains for you to decide.

greg

<Edited for clarity's sake.>
"He knew what he was doing with Iraq". As in, how to deal with it appropriately in a geo-political sense.

[Ron Goodman]

OTOH, as mentioned in the above article, Poppy Bush actually had enough force and international support in place to have gotten away with an invasion and occupation. He also had a reasonable excuse for doing so, unlike the lame lies and fairy tales that Junior had to come up with.

[Kerrigan]

What would have happened if H W Bush had marched on to Baghdad and toppled Hussein? Who knows, but it may very well have been chaos, just like we are seeing now. His best advisors, like Gates, Baker, and Scowcrowft all knew this.

I think it is interesting how Scowcroft warned W about in an editorial on the eve of the invasion, but he paid no attention.

Bush really did just want to surpass his father; he wanted not only to contain Iraq but to invade it and liberate it, something his father would never have dreamed of.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

What would have happened if H W Bush had marched on to Baghdad and toppled Hussein? Who knows, but it may very well have been chaos, just like we are seeing now. His best advisors, like Gates, Baker, and Scowcrowft all knew this.

I think it is interesting how Scowcroft warned W about in an editorial on the eve of the invasion, but he paid no attention.

Bush really did just want to surpass his father; he wanted not only to contain Iraq but to invade it and liberate it, something his father would never have dreamed of.

Well, Bush did not read any of the posts made by the so-called "Lefties" of Macnn either.

The use of psychologisms is always entertainning because it gives the illusion we can understand better the man than the man could understand himself. Unfortunately, the reality may be quite different than any of our projections.

However, the U.S.A. are now facing quite a challenge: the man heading the country is in ever more dire need of saving face, and diplomaticalyy speaking, I can't see how this will be done.

Ironically, today, the Iraqi president is asking for major changes in his government, a government he did not choose...

Al-Rubaie said some ministers are acting as individuals, not as members of a national unity government. He said they were not "singing from the same song sheet."

On one side, a president weakened by the democracy, on the other, democracy undermined by personal interests...

These paralleles, although they may be only coincidences, are quite interesting.

[Kerrigan]

Did you read the article?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Did you read the article?

I did.

I think this is distorted voyeurism, and the agenda is to show how minuscule Bush Jr is through the psychologisms I mentionned. I do not deny that the relationships and reasons for putting so and so here or elsewhere could not be explained by the psychobabble.

But I can't find these interpretations as appropriate, because the world of politics is far more complex, and I despise people reducing other people to living room psychoanalysis, because most of the time, they don't know what they are talking about.

It makes for a great story in the newspapers, and will sell tons of publicity, and make the President look more ridicule than necessary, and I don't think this is fair.

[Kerrigan]

Psychoanalytical interpretation of human relationships is rather common in modern literary criticism. I, personally, find the father/son dialectic to be pretty convincing.

Interestingly, this type of interpretation (psychoanalytical, Shakespearian) is also the MO of Camille Paglia and Jonathan Dollimore, who like Sullivan, are openly gay and argue from a non-leftist position.

Maybe it is why yours truly, a non-leftist homo, finds this stuff so appealing

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Psychoanalytical interpretation of human relationships is rather common in modern literary criticism. I, personally, find the father/son dialectic to be pretty convincing.

Interestingly, this type of interpretation (psychoanalytical, Shakespearian) is also the MO of Camille Paglia and Jonathan Dollimore, who like Sullivan, are openly gay and argue from a non-leftist position.

Maybe it is why yours truly, a non-leftist homo, finds this stuff so appealing

It is convincing, because it forgoes the details of everyday life, like a good TV show. It provides a simplistic interpretation because it does not go in the details of the interactions the protagonists have to go through.

The viewpoint of the psychologist is reduced to a few privileged observations of one hour of duration, and they provide advice that does not resolve the situations the client are going through, but rather, a way to understand so the client can make a decision on his own.

The poblem of psychoanalisis is that it draws more from poetry than scientific experimence. The process of applying psychoanalytical concepts is always very tempting, but its convenience is merely analogical. It cannot explain.

So that stimulates the mind into further speculation, but explains nothing.

But you are right; it is attractive for some, and no need to be homosexual or of one or another political orientation; some imagination suffice to imagine.

[Big Mac]

This appears to be a rather superficial and glib opinion piece. If President Bush were so eager to be his own man in contradistinction to his father's administration, why did he fill so many prominent positions with his father's men from the outset of his presidency? Why did he pick Cheney to be his VP? Why did he pick the left-leaning Powel for Secretary of State? I seriously doubt Bush chose Rumsfeld to satisfy a rebellious desire - he picked Rumsfeld because Rumsfeld was supportive of his goals. I think Pendergast's counter-analysis of this article has a lot of merit.

[Kerrigan]

I don't think the point is to analyze a particular personality in terms of psychological observations. Instead, it just creates a construct of human nature within which we can better understand events.

I tend to think psychology is something of a joke. BUT, ideas like repression, stability v. instability, id v. ego, life v. dissolution, and 'dualist' or dichotomized interpretations in general, have a lot of truth. And they are part of a longer understanding of human nature, dating back to classical times.

I share your scepticism for historiographies, though. There really is only so much one can know about an individual's personality.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I seriously doubt Bush chose Rumsfeld to satisfy a rebellious desire - he picked Rumsfeld because Rumsfeld was supportive of his goals.

...Goals which made his father deeply nervous, and which were executed by his father's political enemy.

No matter how you cut it, Iraq/Rumsfeld are connected with his father. Like many liberals have pointed out (correctly), Iraq was not a serious threat to US security. This must have had more to do with surpassing and/or avenging his father, depending on how you look at it.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

...Goals which made his father deeply nervous, and which were executed by his father's political enemy.

No matter how you cut it, Iraq/Rumsfeld are connected with his father. Like many liberals have pointed out (correctly), Iraq was not a serious threat to US security. This must have had more to do with surpassing and/or avenging his father, depending on how you look at it.

Is it penis envy?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I don't think the point is to analyze a particular personality in terms of psychological observations. Instead, it just creates a construct of human nature within which we can better understand events.

OK. So to understand something, we create another layer on top of it. I don't think so.

I tend to think psychology is something of a joke.

Well, if you know nothing of psychology, it can't mean anything to you that would correspond to reality.

BUT, ideas like repression, stability v. instability, id v. ego, life v. dissolution, and 'dualist' or dichotomized interpretations in general, have a lot of truth. And they are part of a longer understanding of human nature, dating back to classical times.

OK. So psychology is a joke, except for the little parts ypou like?

I share your scepticism for historiographies, though. There really is only so much one can know about an individual's personality.

So if there is only so much one can know about an individual's personality, why would you embarras yourself with generalities anyway?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

...Goals which made his father deeply nervous, and which were executed by his father's political enemy.

Says who? A reporter? Coming from a third party, you get its subjectivity.

No matter how you cut it, Iraq/Rumsfeld are connected with his father. Like many liberals have pointed out (correctly), Iraq was not a serious threat to US security. This must have had more to do with surpassing and/or avenging his father, depending on how you look at it.

So suddenly, pseudo-psychoanalysis brings the Truth, even though the Neo-Con agenda had been made public long ago about Iraq??? And what about the need for Oil? the lobbying of the weapons manufacturers? Or the influence of right-wing extremists?

You sound like a republican who wants to ditch an old kleenex now that it's leeking on your fingers. Nice way of taking accountability and suppport your president.

No one says Rumsfeld is not connected with the 2 Bush generations, but to imply that Bush Jr is competing with his father to get his Mother's appreciation and Iraq was the way to do it is totally cuckoo.

Don't let analogies drive you.

[Kerrigan]

OK. So to understand something, we create another layer on top of it. I don't think so.

Okay, so if you object to creating constructs by which we can understand things, then there is really no point in discussing this.

Why? Because you object in principle to creating "layers" on top of truth. This is a very postmodernist belief, whether you admit it or not. If a "layer", ie, analysis, is inadequate for understanding something, then all methods of analysis go out the window. The truth can no longer be understood in terms of psychoanalysis, modernism, sexuality, historicism, Marxism, semantics etc etc etc.

Eventually it breaks down to the point where language is inadequate at attaining truth. That truth itself is simply a rhetorical locality, totally dependent on language, and whatever lies beneath this "layer" is unknowable.

While these are all valid objections, it makes discussing this pointless.

I would advise that next time you are discussing this, you try to come up with a good argument against the father/son dialectic, rather than dismissing critical methods of inquiry as "generalizations". Because saying that I'm generalizing is such a broad objection that it has no real meaning.

[Nicko]

Check out the next copy of newsweek:

[Pendergast]

And what I am trying to explain is that the usage of psychoanalysis in this case is limitative, because it excludes everything else, but the father/son dialectic.

But I guess you did not get that, busy as you were entertaining the fantasy for reality.

[Kerrigan]

Ya, the article is here:
Can Bush Sr. and His Team Save Son's Presidency? - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

It is thoroughly dumbed down in comparison to Sullivan's piece, but since it is predigested, I'm sure pendergast might have an easier time coming to grips with it

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Ya, the article is here:
Can Bush Sr. and His Team Save Son's Presidency? - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

It is thoroughly dumbed down in comparison to Sullivan's piece, but since it is predigested, I'm sure pendergast might have an easier time coming to grips with it

I have another take on Bush for you. Let's put some make up on his face, just to see what this will reveal about his politics...

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

I have another take on Bush for you. Let's put some make up on his face, just to see what this will reveal about his politics...

cough cough positivist cough

[typoon]

While he may be turning to daddy for help on Iraq. People seem to forget about the referendums that came up for votes in many states. THOSE are more the telling issue than this vote against the Iraq War that handed the dems both houses.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by typoon 

While he may be turning to daddy for help on Iraq. People seem to forget about the referendums that came up for votes in many states. THOSE are more the telling issue than this vote against the Iraq War that handed the dems both houses.

Freud would say you are in total denial...

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

Freud would say you are in total denial...

Really? How would you explain Prop 87 in California getting voted down, Gay marriage amendments in Several states The votes voted NO, In Arizona, They voted to make English the State Language. The people voted to increase the minimum wage in several states. How is that denial? How can you say that this doesn't show that the American people in general are NOT conservative in general. The Elections were more a vote against Bush and the Iraq War than anything else.

[Kerrigan]

To tie this back to the original topic: do you think the American people have better judgment than W Bush?

The masses, without their Ivy League degrees, without political skill, without elitist perspective, know how to run the country better than Bush?

I think the voters gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11, but they realize how blindingly ideological he is, and they managed to smack him down, without sacrificing their fundamentally conservative ideals. They have also given the country to the relatively more capable Democrats, while at the same time rejecting the "Mexification" of the US vis-a-vis the English language referendum.

[Dakar²]

Raising the minimum wage makes people conservative? Eh?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Really? How would you explain Prop 87 in California getting voted down, Gay marriage amendments in Several states The votes voted NO, In Arizona, They voted to make English the State Language. The people voted to increase the minimum wage in several states. How is that denial? How can you say that this doesn't show that the American people in general are NOT conservative in general. The Elections were more a vote against Bush and the Iraq War than anything else.

Typoon,

You got it right.

But what I meant to say was that, if I follow the "father-son dialectic" using psychoanalaysis as a theoretical background to understand Bush Jr as Kerrigan is hoping we will accept without a reaction, denial of whatever is offered is the ultimate response possible.

When a client opposes a psychoanalyst, the psychoanalyst will reply "you are in denial", meaning, whatever the client says, the psychoanalyst will always be right...

So please do not take offense; the allusion was for the psychoanalyst of this thread.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

To tie this back to the original topic: do you think the American people have better judgment than W Bush?

The masses, without their Ivy League degrees, without political skill, without elitist perspective, know how to run the country better than Bush?

I think the voters gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11, but they realize how blindingly ideological he is, and they managed to smack him down, without sacrificing their fundamentally conservative ideals. They have also given the country to the relatively more capable Democrats, while at the same time rejecting the "Mexification" of the US vis-a-vis the English language referendum.

Nice spin Freud...