Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Reflections (with notes) on Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton     In political matters, as in many others, we tell ourselves stories  about who we are, where we are going, and what we are about. When we grow tired of a story, or sense that a new one is needed, we go looking for it. These moments define periods of flux where change is both welcomed and a source of anxiety.   The late 1950’s  and early 1960’s presented us with such a moment. We understood, at some deeper level, that the world had not only changed, but defined itself  anew [1]. Yet there was, at a conscious level, no attendant framing story to articulate what was little more than a growing awareness.   On to the stage stepped John Kennedy. With his youth, wit, energy, vigor and intellect, he inspired us to believe we would forge a ‘new story’ to orient ourselves and move us successfully through the second half of the 20th century.   When he was killed, it all went away.   The only ones left standing were old politicians and their old politics. And they led us back to the past. It could be no other way. It was all they knew, and lacking both Kennedy’s sense the country was looking for something new, and our deeper longing for it, it was all they could do. [2]   So now, after 9/11, a new reality has shaped itself. So now an old politics, riddled with old contentions, holds our politics and politicians in thrall.   And onto the stage Barack Obama strides, calling for change. Young, vigorous, with a clear and penetrating intellect, he urges us to embrace a moment of flux, to stand forth once again as creatures of our hopes, to have the confidence we will discover a new story to orient ourselves, and our allies around the world, in constructive and purposeful endeavor.   It is in this that Obama’s great appeal resides. He is telling us: Have confidence in yourselves; working together we can do this. We’ve changed in the past and emerged all the stronger for it. We can, and must, shake off the miasma of fear the current administration has worked so hard to trap us in. Break free, and this free people can and will discover successful new stances and new strategies. [3]    ‘. . . we, even we  here, hold the power and bear the responsibility - Abraham Lincoln, message to  the Congress 1862.   Hillary Clinton is everything her advocates say she is: deeply committed, highly talented, and an extremely well prepared individual, but by her life and her history, she is tied to the past. She has strategies, plans, and proposals all lined up and ready to go.  The very concrete nature of all of that is ineluctably tied to past experiences and trials, and consequently cannot help but gravitate around an old politics. All of these proposals are eminently worthy of consideration, and I am confident any Democratic administration would be eager to pursue them.   However, through no fault of her own, she is also tied to the past by forces beyond her control. In a concerted, persistent, and virulent effort, the conservative right set out to bring down the Clinton Presidency in flames from day one. And it did not hesitate to go beyond the President, but eagerly sought out anything and everything it could bring to bear, ultimately trashing and demonizing both Bill and Hillary. The ‘polarization’ with which the Clintons (and now especially Hillary) are charged is largely the creation of that right wing effort. Nevertheless, ‘that ‘stuff’ is out there, and will surely be brought to bear in the coming election campaign - and after, as she would try to govern and bring her agenda into being. This reality cannot be brushed aside in choosing the Democratic nominee.   So, do we now want someone, however well intentioned and well prepared, but tied to a more concrete and fixed vision, or someone who inspires us with confidence we can ride the flux: We can, we must, do this ‘new thing’.     [1] Emerging from the Second World War as by far the least damaged and most powerful nation in the world, we proceeded through 15 years of peace and prosperity; assumed, by default, the leadership of a world wide alliance dedicated to containing a vast totalitarian threat, establishing and maintaining, in the process, an enormous and unprecedented peacetime defense establishment. Yet, by 1960 we sensed burgeoning new energies, and felt ourselves capable of more.   [2] Arguably, the great youth unrest of the later 60’s reflected the perception on the part of the young that there was nothing out there which explained or rendered purposeful the altered world they saw all about them. They ‘tuned in’, ‘turned on’, and ‘dropped out’.   [3] The ultimate strength of a Democracy may well lie in a permanent capacity for renewal, for new energies and ideas to well up from the broad base on which it resides. A little elaboration: The three footnotes above were not some sort of obiter dicta. They were entirely integral to the piece.   The first sketched in how things had changed significantly as we moved from the end of WWII through the 50’s to 60’s. A world had redefined itself and we sensed a need for new understandings.] The second note suggested if we do not find what we are seeking, things ‘will out’ anyway, and the youth culture of the late 60’s might  be considered the ‘way out’ that was found.   The third note proposes that (as things always change) one great strength of democracies may be some permanent ability to evolve change from below – evolving it from democracy’s (by definition) broad base.   After 9/11 things have again redefined themselves. We are again in a moment seeking new understandings, and with that, meaningful change. These moments are not constant, and the virtues appropriate to them cannot be considered any sort of permanent necessity in the process and processes of democracies. Neither, in any way, does the occurrence of such moments preclude a need for sound and serious policy considerations.   The roll a Kennedy (or an Obama?) can play is to help catalyze the process. It is my claim that, in such a moment, a leader can inspire confidence in us that we will succeed in our search for new understandings, and, in such a moment, that is not trivial. If that leader is truly exceptional, he (or she) will be able to see the most useful and constructive elements in what emerges, and help ‘midwife’ them into being. Kennedy did not live for us to see whether or not he would have accomplished this, but his (at first) grudging acquiescence to the emerging Civil Rights movement, and the near breathtaking traversal from the Vienna confrontation with Khrushchev, through the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the test ban treaty could be considered encouraging signs. 6:32:30 PM    comment []

ALL HONORABLE MEN     I have written often about my perplexity concerning this administration and its courses. The most recent attempt , ‘Bush Who’, was mostly concerned with the President himself. It does not satisfy on the larger question of nearly inexplicable courses pursued by a whole administration. I find it possible, however, to propose something far more cynical and profoundly disturbing which does cohere. In the end, it ascends into a truly frightening empyrean.   To do this, we must go back to the University of Chicago and a Professor of Philosophy and the Classics who taught there from the late 40’s until the late 60s, Leo Strauss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss   In this, I first want to emphasize that I am by no means sure Strauss himself actually bears much real responsibility for what I am about to outline. His principle obsession(?) in these matters appears to have been a then widely expressed concern that  democracies were liable to fecklessness. That is to say they would be slow and reluctant to defend themselves against threat (as witness the 30s experience with Fascism). Of course, why this should obsess intellectuals of Strauss’ era is all too obvious, but the associated anxieties can legitimately be extended to any era, time and place. In particular, although a clear a war for survival – WWII (after Pearl Harbor) – seems overwhelmingly likely to trigger an appropriate response (however dangerously belated it might be), what might happen when clearly vital interests (oil?) are in placed in jeopardy. Will democracies take the ‘necessary’ actions?   The unstated assumption would be that such will likely involve military aggression. THAT comes up against the consistent observation that modern democracies don’t fight wars. The reason for this is generally left to float out there as, more or less, ‘ a given’. In fact ‘the reason’ can be simply stated: modern democracies are prosperous, and their people understand better things to do with their lives than to go out there and get shot for strategic control of some ‘vital interest’. Find some other way! Cutting some deal or innovating are far more likely than not to be preferred to war - and democratically enjoined.   WAR!?! THAT’S ME! THAT’S MY KIDS!   The thinking which has been associated with Strauss centers on a Platonic formulation. The demos ultimately cannot be trusted. It is fickle, insufficiently reflective, and too ready to indulge irresponsibility. The responsible wise men of the society, its leaders, must exercise their powers to redeem such unfortunate situations as will, from time to time, arise. They are enjoined to do this by employing all their political skills, explicitly to include the telling of ‘noble lies’. That is to say, engaging the demos with such representations of things as will persuade it to do the difficult things that must be done. The wise men ‘know best’ and pursue ‘higher truth’.   Suppose then a group of ‘patriots’ who believe deeply in America. An America not simply of the blood or soil, but as an ideal of freedom and liberty, a beacon, a shining city on a hill, Lincoln’s ‘Last Best Hope of Earth’. An America to whom the opportunity has fallen to lead the world, in the world’s own best interest, to a promised land. It would be criminal to fail this responsibility. But, these patriots clearly see, as just suggested, an inconstant, often heedless American body politic, easily diverted and too often ‘not up to the task’.   What to do?   The Project for a New American Century was formed in the 1990’s as think tank like effort to consider America’s future on the world stage.   http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf    Ultimately PNAC offered a blue print: Rebuilding America’s Defenses.   http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf   PNAC became an explicit continuation of a group under Wolfowitz in the Bush I administration that (with Cheney’s blessing) set up to strategize outside the box. What they came up with was issued as ‘Plan B’. It proposed an American leadership whose proper objective would be to make and keep America paramount, the only power able to truly shape things, and that compromising allies - who might not ‘go along’ with America’s vision - as well as opposing our foes might be contemplated. When Plan B went public, George H W Bush was appalled, publicly condemned it, and had it both withdrawn and specifically rejected by those associated with it.   Perhaps the two most signature items in Rebuilding America’s Defenses are an injunction that our military must be prepared to fight multiple simultaneous major theatre wars, and a lamentation that it might take ‘another Pearl Harbor’; to allow us to ‘go there’.   Then comes 9/11.   By some chance, by some quirk of fate, (or by the hand of God?), a number of these ‘patriots’ find themselves uniquely positioned to play the role of Platonic wise men. How can they not seize the opportunity?   What would they do?   First find a ‘causus belli’. Initially very  easy: Afghanistan. But they cannot succeed too well. A palpable blow must be struck, but not in any way conclusive. A longer term objective, more involving, more deeply engaging is needed. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are by far the most likely target. And beyond this a ‘Great Enemy’ must found. And it is! Radical Islam: especially in its conjunction with modern technology. [From the National Security Strategy of 2002: “The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology.” An almost infinitely inflatable bogeyman is realized, inspiring fear and outrage. Kept alive in the public imagination, enlivened as it will be by the all too real trauma of 9/11, we arrive at something which conspires to keep us creatures of our fears. A ‘permanent’ injunction to make the hard choices, and bear the difficult burdens necessary to keep America strong and dominant.   So tell those ‘Noble Lies’!   It must rip the heart out of any American to observe that nearly everything we (which is to say our ‘patriots’) have done finds a coherent explanation within this framework. The ‘failures’ aren’t failures at all. They offer excuses to continue on chosen courses. We didn’t want to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, barely three months after 9/11. How could the American public be persuaded on Iraq if Al Qaeda, who so hideously attacked us on 9/11, and to whom Saddam might give ‘those weapons’, was out of business, with its leader dead or facing international justice? Why concern yourself overly with taking maximal steps to prevent Al Qaeda from getting at least some of Saddam’s weaponry - some lesser stuff as we gather the bulk to justify our invasion? (Recall - all of the world’s security agencies knew Saddam had no nuclear capability.) How else could we have been so casual as we managed to secure NO Weapons of Mass Destruction? (If we hadn’t found any, then, at best, Osama could have found but little.) Ultimately, of course, everyone lucked out:  there were no W.M.D.s. Then an insurgency in Iraq, along with other problematic situations in Middle East (IRAN!, Pakistan), works to our benefit, providing reasons for a continuing strong military presence in a vital, resource rich, region of the world. And, needless to say, violence and turmoil in the area constantly serves to refresh our fear of ‘the bogeyman’. Finally, why truly settle the Israeli Palestinian conflict, since the ability of such a solution to compromise the appeal of radical Islam – and diminish the ‘bogeyman’ - is all too manifest?   So, then, who are our ‘wise men’.   To begin with, let me say who I believe they are not, starting with the President himself. Neither I, nor, I expect, anyone, can see Bush even conceiving a permanent group of Platonic ‘wise men’, telling noble lies’ and guiding the country. However, for reasons I suggest in ‘Bush Who’, he proved to be highly susceptible, a ‘set up’, for their objectives after 9/11. And I believe he is knowingly and sincerely committed to the idea that, in the choices his administration has made since 9/11, he is pursuing some ‘higher truth’, or deeper reality, and that it is his job to ‘sell’ the choices made. And, of course, as President:  HE IS RESPONSIBLE!   I would find it hard to believe any of our serving military are part of a group of self elected ‘wise men’. It is too contrary to American tradition, training and - far from least - the honor of our military. I must observe, however, that these same individuals are surely susceptible to injunctions to maintain high levels of American military strength.   I would find it hard to believe our judiciary would be involved – again too contrary to our history. But, as well, recent trends to the right have placed in highly consequential positions individuals who are manifestly likely to be more, rather than less, sympathetic to appeals in favor of greater governmental authority in national security matters. Exactly what our ‘wise men’ might hope for.   I do not believe Colin Powell to have been in on this at all, but Powell’s ‘good soldier’ orientation did not serve this country well in a critical moment. Nor do I believe Condoleeza Rice was in any way involved, although, like others I believe she proved all too persuadable.   So then, WHO?   At one point or other, and in critical positions all too often:   In Power – Cheney, to begin with, along with David Addison and I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby; then the Defense Department axis of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and including sometime national security gadfly and ‘advisor’ Richard Pearl. In Justice, John Woo must certainly be a possibility.   In Support -  I deem likely to be ‘in’ with the idea of Platonic ‘wise men’ public intellectuals like Irving Kristal and his son William, Norman Podhoretz, and Charles Krauthammer.   Then in broader support, although unwitting, a truly massive operation consisting of right wing media, the money that finances both that media and various aggregations that provide ‘think tank’ underpinning for the directions our ‘wise men’ have charted, and finally a Republican Party all too mindlessly compliant, chiefly in what amounts to a devil’s bargain for holding on to political power, with all that power’s other uses.   NOW UNDERSTAND: I am not asserting that there really is an operative group of ‘wise men’, but that the operation of such offers the only (nearly?) coherent explanation for all that has happened. As one who made a career in science, which works to discover exactly such explanations, I am fully aware that the existence of a logical explanation in no way constitutes PROOF. Unfortunately the arrival of a logically coherent explanation comes with the proposal of a point of view I believe would revolt any American, explicitly including the gentlemen just proposed to have elected themselves as our ‘wise men’.   I am, in general, a resolute foe of conscious conspiracy theories. Unconscious ones, conspiracies of commonly held self-interest, even self-delusion, I deem far more likely. But what I have proposed here is explicitly a conscious one. Nevertheless, I find it not unreasonable to suppose a group of ‘super-patriots’, convinced of the nation’s need, persuaded of their own unimpeachable honor, and the virtue of their ultimate aims, who could accept Strauss’ arguments for Platonic ‘wise men’ and the telling of ‘Noble Lies’.   If the attendant circumstances were not so grave, it would qualify as farce.   To conclude. if there is a conscious conspiracy, it is treason pure and simple. But setting that aside, I believe these people have broken American law and betrayed such sacred trusts that President George W Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office. Our history cries out for it.   My personal conviction runs deeper. I believe it would be just if President George W. Bush,Vice President Richard B. Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were arraigned, indicted, tried and a verdict reached for Criminal Incompetence and Criminal Negligence over the Iraq War. Guilty or not guilty, I would be content. If the verdict were guilty and punishment imposed, I believe justice would have been served. If that punishment were death, I would believe justice had been served. I am appalled that I should think this last, but I do. And I am saddened well beyond words.   ‘. . . we, even we  here, hold the power and bear the responsibility’   - Abraham Lincoln, message to  the Congress 1863.   All Honorable Men!                            6:28:52 PM    comment []

Bush Who   George W Bush is a mystery to me, and, it would appear, to many others as well.   Not only has he proposed and effected poor policies, overseen the catastrophic implementation of those policies, but, as President of the United States - from the bully pulpit – he has reported to the American people what he has been (and is) about with persistent, virtually constant, duplicity. The first two offenses are, however regrettable, within the realm of expectation, but the last we do not expect. The office and its bully pulpit have been treated with surpassing disrespect.   To make clear what I see to be Bush’s almost constant practice in using the ‘bully pulpit’:   Suppose an FDA panel issued a warning against a particular drug, citing a clear body of evidence. Suppose, then, that the CEO of the company marketing the drug gave a briefing in which the evidence cited by the FDA was dismissed, more or less by rigorously ignoring it. Instead, he presented a sales pitch for the drug, i.e. the construct of its marketing managers and advertising agency. You would say, no surprise there. Suppose, now, the head of the FDA repeated essentially the same performance: explicitly dismissing the report of his own panel, failing to deal with it, while, at the same time echoing the drug’s advertising campaign. Impossible[!] Outrageous[!] you would respond. Yet the action I have just proposed for the FDA head is a very accurate description of how this President has used the ‘bully pulpit’. In dealing with issues of the greatest consequence, rather than honestly present a contention to the American people everyone sees is there, and then forthrightly facing up to it, he acts the part of a marketing executive employing the all the sophisticated resources of modern advertising to ‘sell’ the chosen point of view. Others may do this, but high public officials, in matters of grave consequence, should not, and the President of the United States, speaking from the ‘bully pulpit’ must not. It is betrayal most foul and abominable.   This President has done so many things that defy simple common sense, and said so many things  – with utter conviction (no less!) – that have later been shown to be untrue, half-truths, or gross distortions and misrepresentation of truth, that it stains credulity well beyond the breaking point to propose his acts to be those of a simple, honest man doing his best, and just getting it wrong.   Beyond these things, one sees someone who professes ‘The Prince of Peace’  to be his ‘favorite philosopher’, and yet leapt into a war with Iraq as anything but a ‘last resort’. One sees, as well, someone who shows what might be best described as compartmentalized compassion, someone who will meet privately to comfort those who have lost loved ones in the Iraq war he so clearly could have, and should have, avoided. In this it is difficult not to see an ability to screen himself away from the emotional and psychological consequences of his actions.   In the January 10, 2008 Salon, Camille Paglia makes this observation:    “But amid the glut of campaign news, Bush has been oddly recessive. When he surfaces, he looks a bit untidy around the edges, and his manner veers from the awkwardly jocular to the portentously overemphatic. After seven years in office, Bush still hasn't welded his different parts into a steady, consistent presidential persona.”   It occurred to me, over the years, we have consistently seen a ‘smirk/grin’  reflex(?) from Bush. Is it an indication of a poorly-integrated personality suddenly stumbling over a fault line?   Bush is known to despise this kind of analysis, and perforce, to shun any self examination.   How to make sense of it all?   To begin with, I am not asking: Can a rationale (or set of rationales) be proposed? As anyone with a scientific background knows, it is always possible to fashion a theory, but a satisfactory one is another matter entirely. Rather, I am asking: can a rationale be proposed that is consistent with all, or nearly all, of the evidence.   There have been attempts, generally falling into two categories: personal and external.   The personal ones: Saddam tried to kill my daddy, Maureen Dowd’s darker Oedipal competition with his father, or others I have seen, can explain inner psychological and emotional leanings, but something more than ‘leanings’ seems to be required for so consequential a set of outcomes. Besides, the evidence we have seen on all of these is more by inference than from any really close observation of the actual people in question.   The ‘external’ explanations – (1) an assertion of American power in a vital area of the world, (2) the need to ‘do something’ against Islamic radicalism, (3) pursuit of a ‘freedom agenda’, and (4) pursuit of domestic political advantage (the ‘permanent Republican majority’). Taken singly or together, they open to compelling and plausible rationales - but there are flaws. The first explanation can be made almost entirely persuasive, but fails to convince at an absolutely crucial point. The next two crumble when faced with a simple maxim: ‘the wisdom to act is not wisdom in the actions chosen’. What made this war, in this way, at this time, the way to proceed after 9/11 and against Islamic radicalism? The last, as Frank Rich establishes in The Greatest Story Ever Sold, actually becomes the most logically consistent, if chillingly cold blooded and utterly foolhardy.   The first explanation is the ultimate statement of Real Politik, made by the world’s sole remaining superpower. A stable, reliable flow of oil from the Middle East is a vital interest for the developed world, and nations go to war to defend their vital interests. Close case! We have only to add that America arrogate to itself the responsibility for securing a vital resource, and, of course, the inside track on an enduring economic and military control of that resource. The decision is made to pursue the matter in complete cold blood (Yes: Blood for Oil!), disdaining to responsibly persuade either the public or the congress. Electing, instead, to use all the resources of Madison Avenue, and a well financed, well oiled right wing media establishment to sell their chosen course. It is a virtually seamless, fully adequate, explanation for all that happened. EXCEPT for the shocking mess that resulted. If you are as clear eyed, and ruthless in pursuit of your ends as this Real Politik rationale requires, you WILL be prepared to lock down and tie down post war Iraq to secure the vital interests that were your objective. Yet the planning for Iraq after Saddam manifestly failed to provide for difficulties all too readily anticipated. To say it was grossly inadequate devastates understatement. Their plans explicitly were to be down to 30,000 troops by September! In this light, how can anyone defend Real Politik calculation as a satisfactory explanation for the administration’s actions – not to mention the actions of the President at the head of that administration.   The inability of 2 and 3 above to satisfy as explanations for the Iraq War has been pointed out exhaustively by many. Beyond the (Wisdom to act . . . . , this war at this time, in this way) ‘crumbling block’ cited above, I will mention two here. [1] There were clearly too many ways the Iraq War could go too far wrong, and too few it could go as right we would need to have it go right once we began. [Specifically, we would need to have a stable, democratic, pluralistic, prosperous Iraq in a time frame effective in significantly compromising the appeal of radical Islam within the Arab Muslim world. Anything less would be net gain for Osama bin Laden.] [2] Kenneth Pollack published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq in September 2002. It is said to have ‘persuaded’ many of the ‘liberal hawks’ in their support for the war. Although the book meshed all too perfectly with the emerging Bush administration’s desires, Pollack himself confessed he did not believe Saddam was next on the list after 9/11 and Afghanistan. Well up on the list, perhaps, but NOT next.   This leaves Frank Rich’s domestic political agenda. It is so stunning that it encourages one to dismiss it almost out of hand. And yet, strictly on its own terms, driven by the infatuated, incredibly well established and well funded, devotees of a ‘permanent Republican majority’, there is no obvious downside, as exists with avengeance in regard to 2 and 3 above, not to mention the decisive flaw in 1. Might it be possible, to propose a President looking to do this ‘big thing’, seeing all the ways possibilities 1, 2 and 3 do offer for positive outcomes, but focused sufficiently on 4, with no great obvious problems in prospect, so that the all too clear difficulties of 2 and 3 are blown off, and the utterly essential ‘end game’ of 1 is assumed to be ‘an automatic’: we couldn’t possibly get that wrong; we will have ‘won’ and be in absolute charge.  In short, all of the explanations 1 – 4 are in play, but they are ‘cherry picked’, and inadequately examined. One need only add the same completely ruthless pursuit of this end as proposed in the case of explanation 1.   I would still have to regard this as highly improbable, but new evidence on the ‘personal’ side has recently appeared. It is Robert Draper’s ‘Dead Certain’. It offers an inside look, not just at the events of Bush’s Presidency, but at the personality of the man himself. Two themes constantly recur. The first is a persistently voiced disdain for ‘small ball’: working the details on issues, making small adjustments here and there, producing incremental, if worthy, gains. This is a man who longs to do big things, to be identified with large themes and large outcomes. 9/11 opened the possibility. The second recurring theme is that Bush is an intensely competitive alpha male. The book constantly comes back to Bush as a driven exerciser, whether running (early in his Presidency) and now, a biker, he will positively exult in ‘waxing’ the younger secret service security personnel assigned to keep up with him. The President is shown reveling in the fact that, with biking,  he can keep his heart rate up at 140 -176 for 90 minutes. He is ‘the man’, in charge, and very much wants to be seen as such.   Another story Draper reports plays upon this theme. It relates to Colin Powell – initially projected as the true luminary of the new administration. When Bush first, and effusively, introduced Powell as his Secretary of State, Powell took over the presentation and positively glowed with intelligence, sophistication, and command. As this unfolded, Bush, according to Draper, became noticeably uncomfortable. Not too long after that, the President administered an explicit humiliation to Powell. Bush likes meetings to begin on time. When Powell was late to a meeting early in the administration, the President ordered the doors locked. When Powell was caught rattling the door a few minutes later, ‘everybody had a good laugh’ And, of course Bush made his point: I’m the top dog here.   More recently, an NY Times Elizabeth Bumiller piece on Condi Rice charts the rising profile she has assumed with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Previously the closest of buddies, Bumiller reports the President has begun to refer to Condi, one gathers sarcastically, as ‘Madame’ Rice. A subtle game of ‘put down’ appears to be currently in play.   Then, in Draper’s accounts, contrary to conventional wisdom, the President is consistently presented as presiding over meetings with engaged command, driving things with sharp questions. But what remains unclear is the whether the active probing is a search for evidence and clarity, or just a means of establishing who’s in charge, numero uno.   So let us suppose Frank Rich is right about the domestic political agenda being the master rationale behind Iraq. The others are adjuncts, insufficiently examined with potentially tragic outcomes flowing in their wake.  No matter! You have a President desiring to be a figure of great consequence, who sees the opportunity and will force the way with a personal style of moment to moment dominance. Once the matter is decided, however flawed the choice, doubts are banished, and further reflection becomes one with: ‘thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’re with the pale cast of thought’. Add to this Bush’s faith in God’s guidance: He will not allow me to go wrong. From this point, doing God’s work, an intense competitor sets out to WIN the argument - a point of macho honor. He will drive forward fiercely, say anything, strike any pose, to get his way. It isn’t reason, let alone being the maker of wise choices, but being seen to be the leader, the decider.   So.   Do I have a ‘W’ I can believe in? Nearly. Of course, going to war as we did in the first quarter of 2003, still doesn’t ‘add up’ if faced with any rigorous examination.  What is in question here is rather whether one can credibly propose a President who could, or would, evade such rigor in matters of such consequence. Circle back to the man who compartmentalizes, disdains introspection, and who despises self-examination. Such a man, it seems to me could plausibly shirk the rigor of integrating all he knows, and dwell only on those things which open to other aspects of his personality: a desire to be recognized for something great, and a blinding drive to be ‘the man’. Sad in other contexts, and tragic in this.   In the end, perhaps the most curious thing in all of it is why this has been, and remains, a matter of consuming interest. It does bother me deeply to see a leader and a course of action I can’t come to terms with, that ultimately make little or no sense. Is it simply that human beings want (need?) to believe they understand, at least at some level, what the people and forces that palpably move things in very consequential ways around them are about; even if, in the end, the motivation is seen to be significantly irrational, where the most we can do is make a determination as to the particular nature and origin of the irrationality?   If I’ve succeeded: Cold comfort! 6:25:40 PM    comment []