Economic fundamentalists tend to be free traders, but again this foreign policy stance isn’t especially relevant here. (Though I recall that the Bush admin was especially thrilled with its Iraqi tax-cut plan, which somehow failed to establish either electric power or security).
There are also traditional conservatives to consider. Think Kissinger, Scowcroft or Martin Feldstein. These realists do have an empirical bent, which they combine with a suspicion for what they see as overly ambitious governmental policy. Whether they attain power within a Republican administration depends upon the experience, sense and proclivities of the Chief Executive.
No, it did. Obviously my humorous reply fell flat. It was supposed to be one of those “pick the one insult out of three to challenge as erroneous” kind of replies. You know, like “Who’s scruffy lookin’?”
I don’t either, but I think a case can be made for delusional.
The rosy pre-assault scenario.
Laws appear to him to be merely advisory during a war.
Allowing high Justice Department officials to make niggling quibbles about what is or is not torture. (This might not be a delusional indicator, but it shows to me an unwillingness to fact unpleasant reality.)
And the continued insistance that “progress” is either being made or is just around the corner.
You see delusion, I see propaganda and spin-based policy[sup]1[/sup]. Bush (I speculate) sees himself as a practical man who deligates things to those he trusts, that is those whose opinions are easiest to understand. That would Karl Rove.
I think though that we’ll have to wait for more memoirs to be written before getting a solid fix on this.
At any rate, I see the real problem as modern conservative feel-goodism: this condition becomes more intense when the Commander in Chief lacks experience with or interest in policy. [sup]2[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup](along with an indifference to fact-based analysis).
[sup]2[/sup]Actually, W has some interest in policy. But he has an insufficient attention span – he isn’t a big reader. Thus, he makes no attempt to make midcourse corrections on his baby No Child Left Behind, to take one example.
You see delusion, I see propaganda and spin-based policy1. Bush (I speculate) sees himself as a practical man who deligates things to those he trusts, that is those whose opinions are easiest to understand. That would be Karl Rove. …
I do think Bush is delusional, because his lies are so transparent; like trying to redefine torture. Those are the sort of lies a delusional person tells themselves, to convince themselves; not the sort of lies you tell others to convince others. I also think that he’s so isolated himself from the external world that he’s effectively delusional, no matter his actual mental state. Half the planet could be eaten by purple goblins, and he wouldn’t know unless his aides/handlers/puppetmasters chose to tell him.
You have described a lazy individual who thinks he’s delegating but in reality leaves everything to others and doesn’t bother to follow up. And he appears think of himself as a super duper “big picture executive.”
If my reading of your posts is accurate, what would you call someone like that?
In any case, it appears that there is agreement that this isn’t a desirable state of affairs.
Though actually, I’m characterizing W as inexperienced and basically disinterested – a poor combination.
Still, I really don’t blame the guy: he’s just fundamentally unqualified. Instead, I shake my head at those who tapped his shoulder and the ~80% of Republicans who remain in his thrall.
I’m not all that surprised at the unending greed of some people, and those who tapped his shoulder have done pretty well with him as president and Cheney as VP.
Er, on a completely unrelated subject (“What will civil war mean for US troops in Iraq?”), the answer is… nothing good. Picking sides is hard enough as it is, but at least when you have the semblance of a government, it gives you something to support. But in a three-way (or four-way, or five-way) slugfest, where the parties keep mutating and recombining, what the hell do you do? And am I wrong, or would this be a situation more or less unique in history? I can’t think of another example where an outside army purporting to do what the U.S. is purporting to do found itself right in the middle of an all-out civil war (not that Iraq is there yet). I don’t know if UN peacekeeping missions rise to the level of an example here, but it’s worth nothing that they haven’t fared well in these circumstances.
South Vietnam was having a civil war (Viet Cong vs. the government) when the U.S. intervened. The U.S. also intervened in civil wars in various Central American countries in the early 20th Century.
Well, right, but intervening in a civil war doesn’t really describe what we are doing in Iraq. We went in to overthrow a government, mucked about for a couple of years, then civil war burst out (hypothetically, of course – as mentioned, it’s only on simmer at the moment, not full boil). In Vietnam for instance, we came in to support one side in the civil war.