The Real Tragedy of Bushism

I'm not sure I really ever gave my diavlog with Daniel Drezner a proper plug. I tend to think Dan and I have reasonably different political views, but we wound up with disappointingly little to disagree about. The crux of the problem came when we were discussing the fact that essentially everyone who went to work for Bush wound up with a worse reputation than he had going in. Maybe a few second-tier people (Zelikow, e.g.) have so far escaped unscathed, but the only people to enhance their reputations have been whistle blowers.

Dan called this the "ultimate indictment of Bush," which it really is, but now that we're at a point where most all reasonable people see things this way, what's left to argue about. The best we could really up with was me not buying Alan Greenspan's attempt at an exculpatory confession for his role in the Bush tax cuts rather than a straightforwardly confessional one.

Comments

Yet those with the "worse(ned) reputation(s)" end up with big-time jobs and income and the few honest ones are out of D.C. on their collective asses. The occasional belatedly half-honest ones (Greenspan, Sandra Day O'Connor) aren't looking for jobs.

My question, then: does Bush control all the hiring and firing in D.C., or is blind loyalty to a dictatorial Republican president what all the D.C. power brokers want?

Posted by calling all toasters | September 23, 2007 11:17 AM

essentially everyone who went to work for Bush wound up with a worse reputation than he had going in.

Echoing the above, "worse" with whom? You respect them less? Wow, that's got to hurt. But there's Drezner, too. So maybe it's "all hyper-educated Northeasterners." Or even "all hyper-educated Blue Staters." Hell, let's go nuts: "all Blue Staters." That's got to be crushing to anyone whose political influence is rooted in a Southern party that has, I think, been growing down the income scale. One assumes that the former Bush officials will have to make due with sizable paychecks and the esteem of their own people. (And, of course, in time, the esteem of half of the Dem-friendlies; nothing seduces a Dem-friendly more surely than the counterintuitive position that shores up neutral and even Real America (that is, the South) credentials.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 23, 2007 11:30 AM

"now that we're at a point where most all reasonable people see things this way . . ."

The problem, as I'm sure you'd agree Matt, is that there are many, many unreasonable people still in charge of Washington. The entire leadership of the Republican Party, for instance. Most of the traditional media. A bunch of chickenshit Democrats. On and on.

Posted by pdp | September 23, 2007 11:31 AM

I tend to think Dan and I have reasonably different political views,

Really? About what? You have the same views of Iraq. You have the same views of Bush. You both voted for Kerry. How different are your views?

Posted by Al | September 23, 2007 11:56 AM

I tend to think Dan and I have reasonably different political views,

Really? Do either of you think the proletariat should own the means of production? Do either of you favor immediate extradition of Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld to face war crimes charges in the Hague? How different are your views?

Posted by Bizarro Al | September 23, 2007 12:22 PM

Ezra had a thread on this a little while back.

Jack Goldsmith, James Comey emerge as having an unusually low tolerance for violating the Constitution, for conservatives. Paul O'Neill.

calling all toasters has a point. I doubt that the disapproval of every sentient being not among the 27 percenters really affects these people's lives very much.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 23, 2007 12:39 PM

Really? About what? You have the same views of Iraq. You have the same views of Bush. You both voted for Kerry. How different are your views?

Free-trader, writes for The Atlantic, likes guns, thinks racism is bad but boring and disruptive of alliances, voted for Romney, and supported the Iraq invasion but has since moved to a realist rejection of the same. You would hardly have to be crazy to guess centrist Republican. OTOH, he still has the facial hair.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 23, 2007 12:53 PM

I've read a few posts about who might come out of the Bush admin better off (or at least not totally discredited), starting with James Fallows initial(?) post.

I've agreed with some & disagreed with others (Condi Rice, better off? Really?), but I'm surprised no-one seems to have mentioned Tony Snow.

Of course Snow was a shameless liar during his tenure, but that's pretty much the nature of the job. But during his time as Whitehouse spokesperson he turned the role into one of almost celebrity & in the case of his cancer diagnosis actually became the news himself. Certainly no-one can argue that Snow brought a level of 'personality' to the job that his predecessors lacked.

At the end of the day, Snow has raised his public awareness quotient (I had no idea who he was before his WH appointment) with no real ill-will attached. He could write a book & it probably would be a best seller. He'd clean up making personal appearances/speeches & should he return to his former life as a "journalist", he'd be welcomed as a returning hero with 'insider' cred that very few other jounalists could boast.

I think Snow is coming out of the Bush admin far better off than when he went in, something which Snow surely counted on when he first agreed to take the job (which paid far less than what he was making at the time).

Posted by raff | September 23, 2007 12:55 PM

The gestalt of decent minds getting out of the Bush Admin included so many stern accusations melting into I-didn't-mean-thats that it would be really useful to know what Bush arm-twisting amounts to. A horse head in the bed? A phone call in the night? A couple of guy in trench coats lingering around your child's playground? What? It certainly explains "loyalty". And by that I mean "omerta".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 23, 2007 2:39 PM

Snow became "Yellow Snow" shortly before he left the White House. If that's a step up, well, I don't ever want to work for Fox.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 23, 2007 2:43 PM

See?

He's a uniter, not a divider.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 23, 2007 4:36 PM