Uh.

[katster]

Bush was asked why his approval ratings were so low:

Bush: People are unsettled. They don't look at the economy and say life is good. They know we're at war and I'm not surprised that people are unsettled because of war.

Gregory: But they're just not unsettled, sir. They disapprove of the job you're doing.

Bush: That's unsettled.

I don't really know what to make of this.

(Reading it more in context, he's deluded...)

Comments

[lirazel.livejournal.com]

Well, there's a certain level of self-deception you have to practice to be President--or to be any kind of leader, really. To believe that you, and only you, have the insight, the wisdom, (or in Bush's case, since he thinks thinking is for elitists, the divine anointing) and the energy to Get Things Done is a bit crazy. I should know--my work rewards that kind of behavior, and it's one of the things I really need to unlearn.

But yeah, he goes way, way beyond "a certain level".

[primis.livejournal.com]

OK, time to put on my Devil's Advocate Hat:

You say it's self-deceiving to convince yourself *you* know what's best for everyone and how it all turns out in the end. Yet, if someone is so convinced he's wrong, isn't that the exact same thing? How do *they* know any better, and why are *they* any more qualified than the current administration?

* * *

Anywho.

The stupid thing about all this is that Bush's term, regardless of everything else everyone is saying, will only be judged failure or success in probably another 10 - 15 years. By then we'll know if a) the economy managed to right itself (probably in another 2 or 3 years) to any long-lasting extent as the U.S. tries to beat into its own head to stop relying on so much manufacturing and heavy industry (which are the growing pains the country is going through right now economically, that the Old Guard are fighitng tooth and nail against), and b) if Iraq can remain sovereign, sane, and "safe".

At that point, if neither happens then yes his term in office yielded little-to-nothing. If one does, then it's probably going to be a mixed bag of conclusions. If both happen, then his term is likely going to be considered a success.

There's a big difference between "I don't like him at all" and "he's a failure at his job". That's why I never understand the point of those ratings... he could have a 95% disapproval rating now, and in 10 years is the two above criteria are met he'd probably still be considered a successful president that accomplished a couple major goals (because a lot of well-liked presidents didn't accomplish jack during their terms, and later on history doesn't look so kindly at them... *coughCLINTONcough*...).

This is why I honestly can't tell if the Bush administration is really just sometimes completely crazy, or if they actually understand the Now vs Future situation so they just literally don't care what anyone thinks now.

And it's also why I'm torn as to whether I want a President that worries about the Now and only his little term, or one that takes sometimes-wild chances and only cares about what transpires down the road. You guys will hate this, but... throughout history it's the chance-takers that usually change the world, not the ones that sit back.

It's hard to say. That the problem with politics and opinions -- you don't know how it all truly turns out until much later down the road, and everything prior to that is just speculation.


-- Primis.

[lirazel.livejournal.com]

Umm... I'm not really judging whether Bush's presidency is successful yet. I'm reacting more to the difference in the way he equated "People disapprove of me" and "People are unsettled by the war." Lots and lots of people didn't like Lincoln and his policies (see New York draft riots, for instance), but there's no indication in any of his writing or speaking that he thought that dislike was based on a neurotic condition of the soul on the part of the general public. He thought they hated his guts because they didn't like his policies and the way their lives were having to change, and he was right. (He was also a lot more humble about the whole issue of Divine guidance.)

And I do think you have to be more than a little... focused? obsessive? to be an effective public leader. People will not trust a person who appears hesitant. What worries me in the Bush administration's record so far, though, is the tendency to confuse taking advice for hesitation, and admitting error for weakness. I'm not asking for him (or anyone) to say, "We're sorry we invaded Iraq." I would like to hear someone (maybe Rumsfeld) say, "You know, the generals were right--we did need more boots on the ground. I guess the theory of the agile military doesn't have to also mean a smaller Army."

It seems to me that a real leader can say, "I was wrong," and still lead.

[primis.livejournal.com]

I guess the thing I don't get is... why *SHOULDN'T* he think people disapprove of him because of the war?

He's right, it *is* the war that has people unsettled, and it's why they have an active dislike of him, because he went and did something risky that some people didn't want him to do. There are other reasons people disagree with him of course or disliked him from the start, but they may or may not alone have warranted enough for people to say they flat-out dislike him or disapproved.

Would people be so hostile and critical of him if he hadn't invaded Iraq? Probably not. Without that, his presidency would be viewed as much "safer" by people, so they'd still gripe a ton about him re: domestic issues, but I don't know that the people would have Iraq to hang over his head... because today's American populace is TERRIFIED of getting involved in anything whatsoever abroad (which I still don't completely understand).

And yes, every leader is obsessive and focused to some extent, and considered a bit crazy and somewhat of a loose cannon. No doubt about it. Alexander, Napolean, Caesar, and yes even George Washington. Lincoln, whom you already mentioned, had mental and focus issues. You can speak softly and carry a big stick, but if the opposition knows you won't use the big stick because you're too scared to, it's all moot. If they're not completely certain you won't snap, they'll be less apt to prod and poke you to test you. You don't want a leader that can be played like a fiddle because nobody's scared of him.

I won't get into the military aspect of it because that's a whole 110 years or so of military strategy and doctrine there, still hashing itself out... Agility vs Mass. I don't think anyone has to say they were wrong about much of anything in Iraq yet, because a presence of even more troops there would have simply been greeted with even more hostility at home. "Why are you sending so many? Or more?!". I think regardless of the choice, people'd now be complaining.


-- Primis.

[buran.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm unsettled because I hate spinach?

[seanyoda.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that it's a pretty stupid question, and a stupid question deserves an equally stupid answer.