Understanding G. W. Bush

The presidential election process -- and politics in general -- are designed to produce establishment friendly, risk-adverse candidates and policies... and while GW was establishment friendly, he by-passed the risk adverse factor in 2 ways: First the process is so rough and rigorous that usually only candidates who really want to be president will undertake it... but GW was very different because, even though the family business is politics, after his undistinguished and wild past, he never expected to be president, and even after he was drafted by his family and powerful friends he was ambivalent about running... and thus since, unlike all other candidates who spent their entire adult lives wanting -- if not needing -- to be president, he has less to lose and thus is far more willing to take far greater risks than other politicians. And second, GW was able to avoid most of the usual "retail" campaigning where candidates have to offer and defend policy positions in face to face encounters with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, nor did he have to do much fundraising since family and friends' connections -- and powerful interests, have been more than willing to underwrite any needed funds. He also has largely avoided having to defend his decisions after becoming president since he has very limited access to opposing views, and very few of close circle of advisors are willing to raise uncomfortable questions and "bad" facts -- and since W has had far fewer press conferences (or even one-on-one interviews with the media) than any other modern president.
    Moreover, since Son Bush didn't spend years building a base of substantive knowledge in many federal governmental functions, and lacks the intellectual drive and stamina to gain such knowledge, he has been forced to make decisions based on instinct, faith, and politics, rather than facts, debate and analysis -- and by dividing the world into like minded believers and those who have not yet seen the light, his decisions become rigid rather than flexible, ideological rather than pragmatic.
    These pages explore the surprising Bush Family History (think Midwest as well as East Coast and moderate newer wealth rather than older great wealth) and how W makes decisions as well as the profound and fascinating question of how the relationship between George W (“Son Bush”) and George Herbert Walker Bush (“Father Bush”) has affected Son Bush's decisions as president... and these pages conclude that Son Bush is both rebelling against and trying to compensate for his father, and that this complex father-son (and son-family) relationship has played a significant role in many of Son Bush's decisions, including his decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein rather than pursue Al Quaeda. Obviously if this proposition is correct, even to some extent, it means no other presidential candidate would have invaded Iraq in 2003 in the same rushed time frame and with the same poor plans, including certainly his father who opposed his son's unilateral plans for invading Iraq.
    As a quote in the New York Times by a close friend clearly shows, Father Bush was acutely aware not only that the father-son relationship was playing a significant role in his son’s decision, but that it even affected the way he (Father Bush) could express his opposition, i.e.: “I think he [Father Bush] is genuinely conflicted. The son’s relationship to the father is one where he's still trying to prove his independence. And the father must intuitively know that, and if the father was to press a point strongly, he can intuit that it might well backfire.” (New York Times 4/7/03-B2) That is, Father Bush believed Son Bush’s Iraq plans were not just misguided, but were in some large part because the son was “still proving his independence” ... and Father Bush knew if he pressed his son too hard, it would “backfire” by making the son even more intransigent in carrying out his plans!

    While the research and thought that has gone into these pages will hopefully stimulate and provide a starting point for psychologists, historians, and others to make their own examinations and conclusions on these critical questions, six caveats are necessary:

    First, this type of family relationship between democratically-elected leaders is unique, i.e. in Britain where hereditary and dynasty are everything, there has never been a family relationship, much less a father son relationship, between Prime Ministers. Moreover, there are stark differences between the only other U.S. presidential father-son relationship, i.e. there was a 32 year age gap between John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams and a 24 year gap between their respective terms as president; when Son Adams was inaugurated his father was so frail that he could not attend, and Son Adams had his own very substantial impressive resume of accomplishments. By contrast, Son Bush was only 22 years younger than his father, he largely followed his father's educational, business and political path with far less success, and was Texas state governor only 6 years before he was elected president (and unlike other states, the Governor in Texas has very limited powers and duties), and was elected president only 8 years after his father... and surely Son Bush would never have even been considered as a possible candidate except for his Father!

    Second, family relationships are always complex and unknowable in any absolute way, especially without the participants’ active participation, which is unlikely since all of the Bush family members dismiss any attempt to examine their familial relationships as “psychobabble.”

    Third, since this Bush family has been in the public eye for over 40 years the available information is often conflicting and indeed is often wrong, and so much of what is on the record was “for the record,” i.e. like all in the "press bubble" the family is very careful about what they reveal even to friends, and over the years favorable details are left on the record, whether true or not, and unfavorable details are challenged, whether true or not. For example, before Son Bush decided to run for governor substantial efforts were made to "scrub" the record -- including cleaning up his Texas National Guard records -- and Son Bush even wrote personal letters to people he had offended in the past... (and other smart politicians have done the same.)

   Fourth, public personas can be misleading. For example, while W purposely lowers expectations and reinforces his carefully crafted persona as a class and intellectual “everyman,” in fact he was raised in a family of wealth and privilege, had higher SAT scores than Bill Bradley (and likely John Kerry who never released his scores), graduated from 3 of the country's most elite schools, and defeated smart, articulate, and popular opponents like Ann Richards, Al Gore, and John McCain. However, while no one disputes that he has a significant native intelligence, he seems better at reading people than books ("emotional intelligence") and seems to enjoy using his intellect to avoid doing his homework work more than learning from it. (Barbara Bush's matronly persona is likewise misleading.)

Fifth, while the facts and conclusions offered here often result in a critical appraisal of Son Bush and his presidency, this criticism should not be taken as impugning Son Bush’s motives as wanting to do what he thinks he knows is best for our country.

And finally sixth, while Son Bush's personal animosity against Saddam Hussein and his complicated and competitive relationship with his family likely made the difference in the timing and way Son Bush chose to go to war with Iraq, it could not have happened unless there were other reasons for regime change... and others who willingly implemented, if not supported Son Bush's plans.