This guy writes about Bush not being stupid, but incurious and arrogant. Which is what everybody pretty well knew already. But he also mentions Bush's bad timing:
What’s the lesson of an exercise like this? The leader has to match the time. Bush’s traits may well have made him an excellent (or at least decent) president in a time of peace, focused on domestic policy, and restrained by Congress. And, in 2000, that’s what we thought we were electing him to preside over. But in a time of war, in a system where the executive can act decisively and autonomously, his decision-making style was a disaster.
I said the same thing last year
HERE, when I tried to match up the last three presidents with which terms would've suited their personal styles better. Sometimes history really is about luck and timing.
Obviously W is easy; we can place him in Clinton’s years. Bush arrived at the White House assuming he would just coast on the existing peace and prosperity, simply doling out jobs and contracts to his good ol’ boy buddies and rolling along. 9/11 of course fucked that all up for him, and at a moment when the country needed true greatness, we were stuck with him. In the relative tranquility of the 90’s his inability to lead and intellectual non-curiosity could’ve been hidden easily.
No comments:
Post a Comment