July 15, 2004
A Thin Skin
Politics is a tough business. It’s not at all like a corporation, where the CEO takes the input of trusted advisors and the bulk of the employees remain silent at their desks. In many ways, politics turns that model upside down. The employess have the final say, the trusted advisors are expendable and the work of the CEO is under constant scrutiny by an outside force: the media.
Politics takes a pretty thick skin. Add that to the growing reasons to send George Bush back to the world of private enterprise.
George W. Bush's thin skin doesn't seem obvious at first blush. He is, in his own way, affable. Even as a Democrat, I'd probably much rather kick back and share a cold beverage with Bush than with John Kerry. I simply cannot picture Kerry as personable even in one on one situations.
More than his affability, though, I'll always connect the younger George Bush with a deep arrogance, a mystic aura of inborn and absolute correctness.
In some, that arrogance is rather charming, even inspiring. Few presidents believed more deeply in the rightness of their own decision-making process than John Kennedy, yet we found his arrogance to be a strength, an asset necessary for dealing with the Soviets and Castro. Ike was no less strong in his beliefs and no more tolerant of dissent. Yet history has placed Ike and the Eisenhower years among some of the strongest and most stable in US history. And Lyndon Johnson. Johnson's arrogance was legendary, his tolerance for differing voices very, very small. Yet, when looking at the bulk of Johnson's legacy (if you can look beyond the fiasco of "escalation" in Vietnam to the domestic issues), we can marvel at the positive impact his five years in the presidency had on the country.
Bush's arrogance is very different. It seems to take on a two-fold role: as both an indication of and a mask against a deep seated insecurity. The attitude is less of one who's merely certain he's right and more of one who's afraid that, in fact, the questioner may have exposed Bush's wrongness. His short-tempered responses, which often have the feeling of talking down to the questioner, seem much more a defense than an explanation. Just watch the response the next time the question of WMD or Dick Cheney or a creeping lead by his Democratic opponents is raised by a member of the media. What the arrogance lacks is a fundamental self-assurance - a tolerance of the questioner that quietly conveys the depth of Bush's beliefs. The sideways grin, the jabbing finger, the narrowing eyes, and the rising tone all provide much more insight than the words themselves. If you challenge George W. Bush, he wraps his own uncertainty inside an arrogant response. When in the presence of the citizenry, most of whom are awed simply by a presidential presence, Bush is safe. His arrogance finds that missing charm, that sense of being in charge. Yet put him in a room of skeptical journalists or pols from the other side of the aisle, and the charm disappears, replaced with a steely protection of his worst secret - that he himself isn't so confident in his own abilities.
Bush's refusal to speak before the NAACP stands as a strong case in point. In a race recognized by all as too close to call, Bush chose to further alienate himself from the African-American community rather than face their criticism. He even disregarded the potential political capital to be gained by taking the boos and criticism while addressing the issues in a reasonable way. Rather than face the criticism of the nation's largest African American organization, Bush simply passed, assuring he'll gain very little in the way of the 2004 black vote.
In an interesting way, the undying loyalty to staff is another indication of insecurity, this thin skin that wraps George Bush. To fire a subordinate would represent a subtle admission of error in hiring or, worse yet, an inability to properly manage the staff. To ask Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney to step down would represent just such an admission, a recognition of misplaced trust and an inability to read the motives of those closest to him. As a Democrat, I hope that stubborn refusal to admit an error continues in the case of both Rumsfeld and Cheney. I've already waxed philosophical about my own fear of the addition of John McCain or even Colin Powell to the ticket. The insecurity could be Bush's undoing in this election. His loyalty, borne in that insecurity, may be seen as supporting actions on the part of both Cheney and Rumsfeld that are becoming less and less acceptable to the American public.
We need look no further than 10 Downing Street for an example of leadership, of arrogance born in certainty rather than uncertainty. While Britain's Butler Report certianly presented the classic stiff upper lip in criticizing any individual over Britain's role in Iraq, it still presented strong and compelling criticism for the process and the decisions made in Tony Blair's government. In diametric opposition to the Bush response to the Senate Intelligence Committe report of a week ago, Tony Blair shifted the responsibility from his confidants to himself. He accepted the full responsibility for the British intelligence community's failings with charm, with grace, and without questioning the judgement of those who'd been appointed to investigate. He clearly and congruently accepts the correctness of his own judgement and position. Though I've had my differences with Blair's support of Bush in the past three years, he re-earned my respect by this unambiguous act of leadership. I simply can't imagine the same from Bush or the Bush administration.
In a way, arguing is what we do best in America. We spend the vast majority of our collective time criticizing, cajoling and bemoaning the faults of "the others." And, it's all out there for the rest of the world to see, because it can be. We exercise our freedom of speech, our right to argue and reason, to a level unprecedented in modern civilization. America is clearly not a corporation where the decisions are made at the top and the underlings are expected to do their jobs and go home. The presidency requires a self-assuredness based in confidence, not an arrogance based in insecurity. It requires a thick skin, a tolerance and an understanding of the diversity of opinion that's made us so strong.
George Bush simply doesn't have the thick skin required of a true leader. He's a CEO, not a president. Come November, we should return him to the insular world of private enterprise.
Posted by Tony Steidler-Dennison at July 15, 2004 08:08 PMInteresting perspective, but I’m not sure that George is so thin skinned. I wonder if he may be badger-like, if cornered, for similar reasoning.
He’s street brawler more than a refined debater.
I think that often works to his advantage with the average Joe.
I often observe GW’s caught in the headlights stare and hear strains of Simon and Garfunkel’s “Fakin’ It” playing in the background.
His arrogance, as it appears to me, is borne to someone of privilege.
As Governor Ann Richards said, “Poor George was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
I don’t think it would have been positive publicity for him to appear at the NAACP, He isn’t a stupid campaigner. He knows where his strengths and weaknesses are. Let’s give him his dues.
And then, vote him out of office before he kills more of our young men.
Posted by: Greg at July 15, 2004 11:34 PMShow me a politician, especially a successful one, who isn’t arrogant—and who doesn’t irritate his political opponents, rightly or wrongly, when they show it.
Do you really want to maintain that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore and Howard Dean are polited little self-effacing wallflowers? That they haven’t experienced privilege or pissed people off for appearing pompous and showing flashes of temper (oh no, not in the least), that they are paragons of humility and soft-spokenness? Can we please head back for earth now?
I support Bush, and I do see arrogance at times. Conceded. But a thin skin? Hardly. He seems to have skin like an alligator—he does what he thinks is right, ignoring the polls and the hollow protests of poll-driven political detractors.
I too am impressed by Blair, but he is part of a different political environment. He can say “I take responsibility for my choices—and I believe they were and are the right ones.” If Bush says anything close to that, we’ll get a month of chopped up quotes and mischaracterizations from Reuters, AP and the New York Times: “Chastened Bush Apologizes for Incomptence,” “Bush Falls on His Sword,” or “Apologetic Bush Admits Pact with the Devil.”
In short, Bush has no reason to acknowledge shortcomings to those who refuse for partisan advantage to recognize his accomplishments. The agenda and true motivations of those who insist otherwise are clear.
Do you really want to maintain that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore and Howard Dean are polited little self-effacing wallflowers? That they haven’t experienced privilege or pissed people off for appearing pompous and showing flashes of temper (oh no, not in the least), that they are paragons of humility and soft-spokenness? Can we please head back for earth now?
Of course, I make no such claim. They’ve all experienced privilege, they’ve all pissed people off and, I’m sure, they’ve all shown flashes of temper.
I’m also sure you’re bright enough to understand the real point here, aside from protecting your president. Politicians are, in general, an arrogant lot. I tend to believe that George Bush’s arrogance might be an indication of his own insecurity. That’s as opposed to the obnoxious self-certainty of most arrogant politicians. I’ve always had the feeling that his flashes of anger and intolerance were different than most I’ve seen in politicians. Those who are personally certain of themselves tend to show a bit more patience before popping off and pointing fingers. If they understand the issues, they also understand their own increased self-importance if they can bring you over to their side.
John McCain and Jospeh Biden are two great examples. They’ll both go to greath lengths to explain a position. Because they don’t suffer too greatly from self-doubt, they understand the value of patience and making a succint and persuasive argument for their own beliefs - which, of course, requires that they have a clear understanding of their own beliefs. Bush shows no such patience or understanding. He trips over to anger immediately and seldom makes an argument that deviates from the minimalism he’s been fed by his advisors.
I don’t think he grasps the issues well, and I think he knows that. Pushing him on an issue sends up a warning flag in his head that says you may know it, too. And, his only way of dealing with that possibility is to puff up and appear angry or stern.
Posted by: Tony Steidler-Dennison at July 16, 2004 10:20 AMTo me, George W. Bush has an almost constant look of utter terror on his face. I can’t believe that so many people don’t see it. I am shocked that most Americans perceive him as “strong willed”, when, to me, he almost never looks like he is even remotely confident in what he is saying. He always looks as if he is afraid of (and extremely conscious about) the possibility of saying something wrong or that he might reveal something Rove told him was supposed to be a secret. He often seems like a child who has just broken a window and is trying to figure out a good cover story. In fact, he only ever looks sincere when he’s talking about something totally benign, like his dog or football.
The only time I’ve ever seen or heard him show a temper has been with those precious few reporters with backbones who occasionally press him to discuss an issue beyond his pre-programmed talking points, whereupon he panics and lashes back like a petulent child who has been reprimanded by his nanny. Or he’ll take a kind of passive aggressive revenge, the kind of petty reaction hardly befitting a man of honor and power.
His body language and facial expressions (hunching his shoulders, darting looks from the corners of his eyes, his shifty smirk and nervous chuckles) just scream out “insecurity”. Are Republican Americans really so unable to read people’s faces and bodies that they cannot see these? It’s weird.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 16, 2004 11:52 AMOkay okay, so now the great chat “psychologists” are attempting to weigh in on the vagaries of body language, the inner workings of the mind, and the reason behind a perceived arrogance.
It’s fun to see so many jump in with opinions on areas that I doubt they have any expertise. On the other hand, should any of you be able to list your qualifications (advanced Psychology degrees—sorry, Psych 101 doesnt qualify—-, advanced sociology degrees etc.), then I’ll certainly give you your due.
Greg’s point that addressing the NAACP would have done nothing for Bush is a direct hit on the truth. Bush gave a speech to the NAACP a few years ago, the speech was well received by the audience, yet in the end, the newspapers and NAACP leadership tried to use that very same speech to show Bush as intolerant and racially biased. Bush is smart enough to know that its a no win situation, so why give them ammo. If he goes, they’ll attack him. If he declines, they’ll attack him. Smart move is to just let it be a tempest in a teapot and ignore them—-plus the added benefit is that it makes the sooooooo angry. (Do your best Yosemite Sam imitation and say “OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH!!!!” and you’ll know how angry it makes them.
Y’know, we could analyze Kerry to death also over his hair, his long face, etc…but would it really tell us anything. He and Bush come from the same type of privileged background, both have immense amounts of money now, both have an arrogance (though different) about them. Really, whats the point?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 16, 2004 12:45 PMMy point wasn’t so much to psychoanalyze Bush as it was to culturally analyze the American people. I am qualified to do neither, of course, but it is interesting to note that people on the left and right view the same behaviors in different ways. Somehow, Republican Americans can view a shifty-eyed, hunched-over, nervous, and smirking man as a great leader, while Democrats tend to view those exact same qualities as those of a brat or a scoundrel. I wonder if this is just partisanship on both sides, or if it really bespeaks a cultural difference between the right and the left and what we look for in a leader.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 16, 2004 01:17 PMChris:
Another fine straw man indeed. You characterize Bush as a “shifty-eyed, hunched-over, nervous, and smirking man” and, making the assumption that you are of course correct in that assessment, point that Republicans see those as characteristics of a great leader. Let’s take two examples of why your logic is just plain wrong:
1) Let’s characterize Bush as a “steely-eyed, unpretentious, confident and smiling man” and then apply your logic. Makes the Dems look downright stupid, doesn’t it?
2) Let’s characterize Kerry in the same negative mode you use for Bush. We could come up with a leader who is a “dour, longfaced, negative and unsmiling man”. Then we could wonder how Democrats could possibly love such a person.
You see how easy it is to gin up an argument, if you simply take assumptions and turn them into facts. I doubt that was your intent, but it WAS your result.
I see Bush as being very confident in his direction, and that is the sign of a good leader. He has consistently stayed the course even in the face of opposition, and he has gotten his issues through (tax cuts, Iraq etc.) Now you can disagree with his direction, but I dont see any way to show that he doesnt follow that direction.
When we reduce people to mere caricatures, we dumb down the argument. For instance, we could view Casey Stengel as a buffoon, based on his mangling of the language and his colorful phrasings. But to do so would miss out on the fact that he won 10 pennants and 7 World Series as a leader of men.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 16, 2004 01:46 PMJoe, I hope that you are not suggesting that you thought that my post was intended to be a logical argument! It was meant as good clean idle fun, and I clearly and repeatedly framed the whole thing as my own personal opinion.
Anyway, since you’ve called me on my observations: Bush is shifty eyed (he looks out of the sides of his eyes an awful lot, especially during the awkward and inappropriate pauses he often inserts in the middle of sentences about sensitive topics). He is hunched over an awful lot (again, especially when he’s talking about sensitive topics).
And yes, John Kerry most definately is dour, longfaced, and unsmiling! Those are perfectly legitimate observations of my candidate (and believe it or not I don’t love him). I was just wondering how so many people could percieve Bush as a confident person when, to me, he seems tentative and nervous about almost every word he speaks.
It reminds me of the 2000 Presidential debates. We could argue until the end of time about who gave a more personable performance or who seemed more presidential, but when it came down to the question of who displayed the deepest and broadest understanding of the issues, you’d be insane to deny that Gore blew Bush away - there were some issues (such as the excerpt below) about which Bush apparently knew nothing at all… and yet, after the debates, huge numbers of viewers polled said that Bush seemed to have the deeper understanding of the issues! I remember pulling my hair out, flabbergasted, when those snap polls came in.
-Cf
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Vice President Gore. The family farms are disappearing and having a hard time even in the current positive economic environment. What steps would you or your administration take on agricultural policy developments to protect the family farms for this multi-functional service they perform?Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 18, 2004 12:07 AMGORE: We’ve got a bumper crop this year. But that’s the good news. You know what the bad news is that follows on that. The prices are low. In the last several years, the so-called Freedom To Farm Law has, in my view, been mostly a failure. I want to change many of its provisions. Now, many here who are not involved in farming don’t — won’t follow this, so just forgive me. Because the 2% of the country that is involved in farming is important because the rest of us wouldn’t eat except for them. And you guys have been having a hard time, and I want to fight for you. I want to change those provisions. I want to restore a meaningful safety net. And I think that you pointed the way in your comments, because when you say there are multiple things accomplished by farmers, you’re specifically including conservation and protection of the environment. And yes, farmers are the first environmentalists. And when they decide not to plow a field that is vulnerable to soil erosion, that may cost them a little money, but it helps the environment. I think that we ought to have an expanded conservation reserve program. And I think that the environmental benefits that come from sound management of the land ought to represent a new way for farmers to get some income that will enable them — enable you to make sensible choices in crop rotation, and when you leave the land fallow and the rest. Now, I’ll go beyond that and say I think we need much more focus on rural economic development programs. I see a time when the Internet-based activities are more available in the rural areas and where the extra source of income that farm families used to have from shoe factories is replaced by an extra source of income from working in the information economy. So we need to do a lot of things, but we ought to start with a better safety net.
MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes.
BUSH: I would like our farmers feeding the world. We’re the best producers in the world, and I want — I want the farmers feeding the world. We need to open up markets. Exports are down, and every time an export number goes down, it hurts the farmer. I want the next president to have fast track negotiating authority to open up markets around the world with the best and the most efficient farmers. I don’t want to use food as a diplomatic weapon from this point forward. We shouldn’t be using food. It hurts the farmers. It’s not the right thing to do. I’m for value-added processing. We need more work on value-added processing. You take the raw product you produce, I presume you’re a farmer, off your farm, and you convert it. Value-added processing is important. I’m for research and development. Spending research and development money so that we can use our technological base to figure out new uses for farm products. I’m for getting rid of the death tax, completely getting rid of the death tax. One reason family farmers are forced to sell early is because of the death tax. This is a bad tax. The President shouldn’t have vetoed that bill. It’s a tax that taxes people twice. It penalizes the family farmer. So should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote, I also understand — I want to open up markets, but I also understand that farming is a part of our national security. I’m from a big farm state. We’re the second biggest state — farming state in the country. And I hear from my farmers and friends all the time. The Vice President is right, by the way. Every day is earth day if you own the land. I like the policies that will encourage farmers to put — set aside land as well for conservation purposes. Thank you.
I guess being the resident movie watcher and would-be film director, I’ve got to offer my opinion.
Frankly, I’d call for another cut on most of Bush’s line readings. His language comprehension is terrible, as is his grammar. One would think that with his education, he could express himself with greater clarity.
When he does speek well, he often speaks in a tone that telegraphs the epic nature of what he thinks of his agenda. Unfortunately, his lines usually are written in a style that has grand pretentions, but fails to hit the right beats to cross the line from sounding ground to feeling grand. The late Ronald Reagan was much better at crossing over to the grand sense from simply grandiose language.
As for his mannerism, I guess it depends on whether you’re in on the joke. If you are, his rhetoric might seem fun. If you’re not, he’s going to come across as an a******.
And he sure as hell isn’t making apologies. Again, that’s nice if you’re in on it, but it only reinforces the a****** factor if you’re not.
Some people might celebrate that, saying he’s driving liberals crazy, but I think they have little worth celebrating about. While he’s driving Liberals crazy, he’s also alienating them and insuring that many people who lean a little to the left lean towards Kerry. In a politically divided country, it’s the candidate who can appeal across party lines despite party loyalties that will win elections.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2004 06:57 PM
