MysteriousFaith

A Man I Can’t Seem to Understand: Reflections on President Bush

President Bush is not a bad man, and I think it shows the ugliness of the current debate to attempt and portray him as a man with damaged ethics. He is, by all accounts, a very decent, genuine and sincere man. But sincere men can be badly misguided. It is possible to be both completely sincere and completely wrong. Within this type of distinction, between someone being a good person but an incapable leader, that too much analysis of President Bush goes astray. It should not be necessary to make him out as a bad person in order to question certain parts of his abilities just as it should not have been necessary to make President Clinton out to be a terrible man to disagree with his politics.

A Man I Can’t Seem to Understand

The Meet the Press interview between Tim Russert and President Bush was the most recent in a long string of situations that have left me concerned about our current President. The challenge of properly questioning any person in a position of authority is something that not all commentators take seriously. Some who agree with the President seek to mollify the nagging questions and suspicions others have. In contrast, those who disagree seek to portray the President as a liar, deeply misguided, insincere or stupid. In both of these extremes lies the potential for un-necessary polarization, something that serves only a select group of people within America. Americans would be wise to question more often and in more depth to whom it is most advantageous to mute meaningful public dialogue.

Having finished Anthony Everitt’s biography of Cicero in the last five months, I can not argue from the position that our political system of today is more divisive, mean-spirited, sanctimonious or unproductive than that of past republics. The Rome of Cicero’s day was certainly just as complicated and confusing. What some look to as the recent phenomenon of character assassination and negative politics is certainly not a phenomenon, nor is in new: it is an unfortunate by-product of men attempting to grab power at whatever the cost. It is with such a hopefully pragmatic view of power and politics that a reasoned analysis of President George W. Bush can and should be undertaken; an analysis that is unwilling to resort to character defamation and rightly, but reasonably, questioning what we can make of this man who currently leads the world’s hyper-power.

In what is perhaps the first organized effort to explain the power of communication and the control of audiences by an experienced orator, Aristotle’s Rhetoric argues that a dynamic presentation involves the interaction of four things (the speaker, the message, the audience, all within a cultural context), with successful communication requiring three elements: the ethos (is the speaker trustworthy?), pathos (does the speaker invoke in me a positive emotional response?), and logos (are the speaker’s claims accurate? Does he understand what he is saying?). This age old model is still meaningful in allowing for a reasoned debate over leaders. It is within this model that a person can appreciate how a particular audience may resonate with President Bush personally, may feel him trustworthy, and be content to halt their questioning of him at either of these points. It is also within this model that others - myself included - would agree that President Bush is a “good” man, but that he lacks a grasp of the requirements of being President.

For me, my initial misgivings towards President Bush were based on his communication style. I do not mind the sedate Southern enunciations, nor do I mind the occasional mangled sentence. What has always troubled me about his presentation of critical information is that he appears to wince when he is communicating something somber, and to smile when he is attempting to be serious. Such a critique may seem trite; however, upon further analysis it is an important part of what I would suggest is most troubling about his presidency.

During Russert’s interview with President Bush I was struck most predominantly by a seeming disconnect between his body language - particularly his facial inflections - and the gravity of topics that were being discussed. My very first and most troubling thoughts about then-candidate Bush and now-President Bush have been based on his facial and verbal responses to serious questions. When answering a serious question, even when on point in his response, President Bush smiles and seems whimsical when dealing with the most serious of global and domestic issues. This has bothered me and continues to deeply trouble me - it does, if we go back to Aristotle’s communication model, fail the standard of logos.

I asked someone who is a professionally trained therapist what it might possibly mean to interact with someone who, in the midst of a serious discussion, was smiling and showing innapropriate body language. The answer was interesting: such a disconnect is often times based on someone genuinely not having grasp of the material they are being pressed on. They are attempting to offer to the audience a “hey, don’t blame me - I didn’t do it!” explanation. What is to be made of this? I would suggest that this bad feeling, in conjunction with what seems to be a sub-par grasp of important ideas and facts, combine to make questions of his capability reasonable.

An MBA President

Since the advent of Ross Perot, a presidential candidate I must confess to having voted for, America has been infatuated with the idea of a businessman in the office of president. This belief has to do with two things: first, American’s religious belief in the righteousness of business and second, American’s sense that somewhere our ideas on efficient bureaucracy and effective government need to be re-evaluated - something a businessman can easily lead. This latter belief is rightly couched in the question Americans have over the very nature of the role of president. Is he a leader, which mandates oratorical skill; is he America’s primary statesman, which requires that he grasp complex international geo-political issues; or is he our chief administrator, the true CEO of our republic?

Let me first suggest that the comfort we have with equating the words “CEO” and “republic” would trouble our founding fathers. For too long we have overlooked the requirements that our presidents have genuine grasp of complex issues; we are willing to have our leaders presented to us in painfully engineered debate forums that do very little to bring out the respective ideas or competencies of either candidate. Where we rightly view our systems of governance as needing reform, we turn to that part of American culture that we idolize the most: the Harvard MBA CEO - in this case literally fulfilled in the current President George W. Bush.

Only history will reveal the truest inner workings of the Bush cabinet. I have the sense that he simply takes the word of those around him, as current business theory tells us is the job of any good manager: expert in nothing, chosen for their ability to make a decision and manage the consequences. Whether or not these are informed decisions is secondary to whether or not the decision is made decisively.

This is very consistent with Harvard Professor Harvey Cox’s argument that America is a country almost entirely rooted in the belief of pragmatism. We have long since abdicated our belief in leaders who are knowledgeable, preferring instead to have leaders that fit our idea of what commercial success means. Never before have President Truman’s words “the business of America is business” rung more true. Never before have they rung so troubling either.

I would suggest that the recent exchange between the 9/11 Commission (a tragedy in that they are not asking the right questions to the right people) illustrate Bush’s troubling grasp of intricate issues. For those who have been following the debate over Condoleezza Rice’s testimony to the committee, it has been possible to miss the negotiation that was actually taking place: President Bush allowing Rice to testify if he could bring Vice President Cheney along with him during his private interview with the same committee. This troubles me deeply; it troubles me because it again reinforces my sense that President Bush does not grasp the details of his own policies. I am bothered that our President does not understand his policies well enough to stand before a private group and support, even persuade, others of the righteousness of his doctrine. Let me honestly admit this: if you do not share my five year old queasiness about President Bush’s capabilities this fact in and of itself may be easily explained away. I can accept that and do understand. Enough of these situations have added up to make my concern legitimate to me, and as such, I believe it is appropriate to explore him in further detail as we are doing here.

He is a Christian - His Policies Are Rooted in Prayer

In finishing this article, I would want to sound a note of caution to my fellow Christian brothers and sisters: be careful in equating a Christian President with being an Effective President. I have personally, as many others have, experienced a Christian businessman or leader who, while no doubt a sincere and good person, was not capable of doing the job. We marginalize Christianity when we assume two things: that God votes Republican and that if you are a Christian you are an effective leader. Neither is true and both have become increasingly essential parts of the American Christian system of belief.

Perhaps my desire to see an intellectually stimulating, capable communicator in the office of President is somewhat vapid. President Bush is not a bad man, and I think it shows the ugliness of the current debate to attempt and portray him as a man with damaged ethics. He is, by all accounts, a very decent, genuine and sincere man. But sincere men can be badly misguided. It is possible to be both completely sincere and completely wrong. It is possible to be a genuine, authentic person, but to be incapable of the level of analytical thought a job requires of you. It is within this type of distinction, between someone being a good person but an incapable leader, that too much analysis of President Bush goes astray. It should not be necessary to make him out as a bad person in order to question certain parts of his abilities just as it should not have been necessary to make President Clinton out to be a terrible man to disagree with his politics.

For More Information:

Destiny’s Child: George W. Bush and his God

I offer this article as an alternative perspective on my comments about President Bush; specifically, how his faith has impacted his presidency. However, in the interests of provoking intelligent dialogue, I believe Andrew’s comments are very worthwhile.

Frank Bruni - Ambling Into History

This is a thoughtfully written review of a NY Times reporter who followed then candidate Bush through the Presidential primary and election. It is not a probative book; however, it is an insight into the personality of President Bush and what created the Republican Party’s incentive to make him their winning candidate in 2000.

previous post: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World
next post: A Disagreement Among Friends: A Review of Dispensational Theology

• Posted in Politics
• 1 comment
• Trackback
• April 4, 2004

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

One Response to “A Man I Can’t Seem to Understand: Reflections on President Bush”

1. Mom Says:
   July 4th, 2004 at 4:50 pm

   Wow! I feel like I was just hit by a literary whirlwind! I’m just half-way through your web site & my head is about to explode-my own personal fireworks! A nice piece on GWB. I’m sure it must have taxed your graciousness quotient a bit. That’s all I have to say for now- my ethos, pathos & logos meters are overheating! Love, Mom

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website