Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

ratbastid · 12-14-2005, 07:00 AM

*Please Note* I'm posting this having learned from my mistake on the Randy Cunningham thread I started. I'm going to start with facts, then note clearly where my opinion starts. I'm interested in others' opinions, not partisan rancor. Although I doubt my opinion will surprise anybody, I intend for this thread to be an INCLUSIVE AND RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION. This thread WILL necessarily involve comparing current politicians with historical ones. I declare that fair game for this thread, provided the comparison is in terms of leadership and management style. Responses like, "Oh yeah, well YOUR guy did X" are off limits for purposes of the discussion I'm intending to start in this thread.

This week's Newsweek has a cover story by Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe on the Bush Administration's alledged isolation and the degree to which they're seen as out-of-touch. The full content of the article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10417159/site/newsweek/ . I'm not going to post it all here because it's quite long. I recommend you read it before you post. In fact, when you first post on this thread, I request that you let us know whether you've read the article or not.

I don't think anyone can dispute that the Bush administration is pretty insular. Bush has surrounded himself with old friends from Texas and conservatives who basically follow his same line of thought. It's said that disagreement is equated with disloyalty in the White House.

This is a real change from how past presidents have operated. The article constrasts Bush's practices against those of Lincoln, JFK, Regan, Bush Sr., and others. It works out that other presidents--or, at least, those cited in the article--surrounded themselves with a plurality of opinion. They wanted people talking to them who didn't just agree with them. They wanted several viewpoints to choose from.

By contrast, Bush appears to have surrounded himself with people who will basically support his actions and opinions. He doesn't appear interested in contrasting viewpoints or grey areas. It seems he's 100% certain of himself and in the rightness of his actions at all times, and he uses his staff not as a wellspring of advice, but as an extension of his will.

What do you think about this? Is this a valid way to run things? What do you see as the upside or downside of this?

--Begin ratbastid's Opinion--

Personally, I think this is a pretty dangerous way to run a country. I think that without dissenting viewpoints, mistakes are compounded and errors in planning and thinking aren't caught. Iraq is a good example--it looks to me like our actions there are basically a nosedive into poor planning and policy.

The last few weeks have shown some planning and leadership from the administration on the Iraq issue (or perhaps shown the public display of their planning and leadership), and I applaud that. But that only started happening when those on the outside, starting with Jack Murtha, took a sledgehammer to the concrete wall surrounding the Oval Office. It got so obvious in the polls that people were unwilling to tolerate more of the same that the administration got the message and made a slight course correction.

I think that keeping an insular pocket of like-thinking advisors leads to shortsightedness and a lack of nimbleness on the part of the administration. Ignoring anything other than what is already known seems dangerous to me.

What are your thoughts?

12-14-2005, 07:00 AM	#1 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	"Bush in the Bubble": Your opinion? Please Note I'm posting this having learned from my mistake on the Randy Cunningham thread I started. I'm going to start with facts, then note clearly where my opinion starts. I'm interested in others' opinions, not partisan rancor. Although I doubt my opinion will surprise anybody, I intend for this thread to be an INCLUSIVE AND RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION. This thread WILL necessarily involve comparing current politicians with historical ones. I declare that fair game for this thread, provided the comparison is in terms of leadership and management style. Responses like, "Oh yeah, well YOUR guy did X" are off limits for purposes of the discussion I'm intending to start in this thread. This week's Newsweek has a cover story by Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe on the Bush Administration's alledged isolation and the degree to which they're seen as out-of-touch. The full content of the article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10417159/site/newsweek/ . I'm not going to post it all here because it's quite long. I recommend you read it before you post. In fact, when you first post on this thread, I request that you let us know whether you've read the article or not. I don't think anyone can dispute that the Bush administration is pretty insular. Bush has surrounded himself with old friends from Texas and conservatives who basically follow his same line of thought. It's said that disagreement is equated with disloyalty in the White House. This is a real change from how past presidents have operated. The article constrasts Bush's practices against those of Lincoln, JFK, Regan, Bush Sr., and others. It works out that other presidents--or, at least, those cited in the article--surrounded themselves with a plurality of opinion. They wanted people talking to them who didn't just agree with them. They wanted several viewpoints to choose from. By contrast, Bush appears to have surrounded himself with people who will basically support his actions and opinions. He doesn't appear interested in contrasting viewpoints or grey areas. It seems he's 100% certain of himself and in the rightness of his actions at all times, and he uses his staff not as a wellspring of advice, but as an extension of his will. What do you think about this? Is this a valid way to run things? What do you see as the upside or downside of this? --Begin ratbastid's Opinion-- Personally, I think this is a pretty dangerous way to run a country. I think that without dissenting viewpoints, mistakes are compounded and errors in planning and thinking aren't caught. Iraq is a good example--it looks to me like our actions there are basically a nosedive into poor planning and policy. The last few weeks have shown some planning and leadership from the administration on the Iraq issue (or perhaps shown the public display of their planning and leadership), and I applaud that. But that only started happening when those on the outside, starting with Jack Murtha, took a sledgehammer to the concrete wall surrounding the Oval Office. It got so obvious in the polls that people were unwilling to tolerate more of the same that the administration got the message and made a slight course correction. I think that keeping an insular pocket of like-thinking advisors leads to shortsightedness and a lack of nimbleness on the part of the administration. Ignoring anything other than what is already known seems dangerous to me. What are your thoughts? Last edited by ratbastid; 12-14-2005 at 07:53 AM..