Sunday, October 17, 2004

Ron Suskind, Without a Doubt

Ron Suskind has written an eery portrait of President Bush for this week's New York Times Magazine. Without a Doubt deals with the President's sense of absolute certainty arising out of his faith in God and its consequences for the US and the rest of the world.

The whole article basically gave me goosebumps, but there were a couple of sections that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Early in the article, Suskind gives us a picture of the newly struggling Dubya, trying to get his professional act together and coming up a little short:

His marriage may have been repaired by the power of faith, but faith was clearly having little impact on his broken career. Faith heals the heart and the spirit, but it doesn't do much for analytical skills. In 1990, a few years after receiving salvation, Bush was still bumping along. Much is apparent from one of the few instances of disinterested testimony to come from this period. It is the voice of David Rubenstein, managing director and cofounder of the Carlyle Group, the Washington-based investment firm that is one of the town's most powerful institutions and a longtime business home for the president's father. In 1989, the catering division of Marriott was taken private and established as Caterair by a group of Carlyle investors. Several old-guard Republicans, including the former Nixon aide Fred Malek, were involved.

Rubenstein described that time to a convention of pension managers in Los Angeles last year, recalling that Malek approached him and said: ''There is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. . . . Needs some board positions.'' Though Rubenstein didn't think George W. Bush, then in his mid-40's, ''added much value,'' he put him on the Caterair board. ''Came to all the meetings,'' Rubenstein told the conventioneers. ''Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years: 'You know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.' He said: 'Well, I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. And I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board.' And I said thanks. Didn't think I'd ever see him again.''

Bush would soon officially resign from Caterair's board. Around this time, Karl Rove set up meetings to discuss Bush's possible candidacy for the governorship of Texas. Six years after that, he was elected leader of the free world and began ''case cracking'' on a dizzying array of subjects, proffering his various solutions, in both foreign and domestic affairs. But the pointed ''defend your position'' queries -- so central to the H.B.S. method and rigorous analysis of all kinds -- were infrequent. Questioning a regional supervisor or V.P. for planning is one thing. Questioning the president of the United States is another

Sometime later Suskind paints as clear a picture of the Bush administration as I have ever seen:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Bush Supporters: This is totalitariansm. Call me a member of the reality-based crowd, if you will. Reality is saying the following: A vote for Bush is a vote for the end of America as we know it.

1 Comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not writing my name for a reason that should send goosebumps down your spine: I am afraid of this administration. Yes, for the first time in my life I am afraid of politicians. The reason is, you see, I have two sons.
I stumbled upon your site today while trying to find some comments on Ron Suskind's article "Without a Doubt."
I have not read very much of your site, but I would like to compliment you for being brilliant, articulate and wise. What a poor figure "X" the name escapes right now) makes compared with your eloquent defense of your right to discuss the draft. The fellow that tried to silence you was using the same tactics that President Bush uses to silence those that dare to present another point of view.
I applaud you, I admire you and I would like to encourage you to continue just as you are doing. The future of this Country, indeed of the world is entirely in the hands of young people like yourself.
Have you heard Arthur Schlesinger? Discussing his new book "War and the American Presidency" he said that what Pres. Bush is doing could bring the end of American democracy, which, at 200 years of age, is still basically an "experiment" as far as forms of government go. He also said that this century could be the most violent in the history of the world after the last one.It depends, he said, on the result of the election.

Please continue along your path. Please "read" Thoreau,Civil Disobedience. He wrote it for you. There is no reason today to go to war. We must learn to resolve conflicts with other means. Let us learn from those Countries that
have learned how to get along or to use other ways to express disagreement. Self-defense must mean self-defense, not preemptive strike. Paranoids attack because they "think" they are being attacked.
And continue to talk about the draft. No more Viet-Nams, no more Iraqs.

10:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home