If I wasn't depressed enough about where we are heading, John Dean's newest column,
If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President, puts everything in its truly frightening perspective. And, has been suggested, it most assuredly deserves to be read in its entirety.
Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.
Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because "I'm the decider and I decide what's best." He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: "I'm the Daddy, that's why."
Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.
Any good psychologist will tell you that Bush's continued rigidity does not bode well. Those rumors of him being back on the bottle and needing antidepressant medication just do not seem that far-fetched to me.
George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans. Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.
With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.
Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.
The future is just too bleak when you consider what this current administration will do to stay in control, and thereby be able to cover up their crimes and continue in their mode of destructive secrecy.
Bush may mount a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities - hoping to rev up his popularity. (It's a risky strategy: A unilateral hit on Iran may both trigger devastating Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks in Iraq, with high death tolls, and increase international dislike of Bush for his bypass of the U.N. But as an active/negative President, Bush hardly shies away from risk.) Another rabbit-out-of-the-hat possibility: the capture of Osama bin Laden.
If there is no "October Surprise," I would be shocked. And if it is not a high-risk undertaking, it would be a first. ... There is, however, the possibility of another terrorist attack, and if one occurred, Americans would again rally around the president - wrongly so, since this is a presidency that lives on fear-mongering about terror, but does little to truly address it. The possibility that we might both suffer an attack, and see a boost to Bush come from it, is truly a terrifying thought.
Update: I forgot to note this in my haste to get up this post. I am looking forward to John's riveting book,
Conservatives Without Conscience, which is due out in July.
The review at
Amazon says this:
Here, he takes a sobering look at how radical elements are destroying the very foundations of American democracy. He not only highlights specific right-wing-driven GOP policies and procedures but also probes the conservative mind-set, identifying a new authoritarianism that has become increasingly a part of the contemporary movement. Dean relies on five decades of often ignored social science research that has never before been made so accessible to the general reader and his personal knowledge and experience to explain the political behavior of conservatives, from their unbridled viciousness toward those daring to disagree with them to their religion-based
piety politics which conceal an indifference to the founding principles of liberty and equality, as well as fundamental precepts like the separation of government powers.
By the end, Dean paints a vivid picture of what's happening at the top levels of the Republican Party, a noble political party corrupted by its current leaders who cloak their actions in moral superiority while packaging their
programs as blatant propaganda. Dean, certainly no alarmist, finds disturbing signs that current right-wing authoritarian thinking, when conflated with the dominating personalities of the conservative leadership, and the compliant
acquiescence of their followers, could take the United States toward its own version of fascism.
UPDATE 2: Dean's book title's incorporation of the word "conscience" got me
thinking.
I really believe that mad boy emperor Bush suffers from an
Addicted Narcissistic
Personality Disorder. And, sadly he's been suffering for some time.
The
decider today in 2006 being no different than what he said in Bob Woodward's
November 2002 Washington Post article:
“I'm the commander --see, I don't
need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the
interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to
me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”
And, seeing all these faces on the book cover got me thinking about how many
of these men share at least the Narcissistic Personality Disorder distinction.
The DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition,
1994, American Psychiatric Association) Narcissistic Personality Disorder refers
to individuals with a Cluster B Personality Disorder, their having an excessive
sense of how important they are. They demand and expect to be admired and
praised by others and are limited in their capacity to appreciate others'
perspectives.
So, here are the criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
What do you think???
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a
variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements
and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate
achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance,
beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or
institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially
favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to
achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings
and needs of others
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or
her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes