BOLD RIGIDITY

Defining George W. Bush (Anne E. Kornblut, 5/4/2003. Boston Globe Magazine)

Standing next to British prime minister Tony Blair at a public appearance in Belfast last month, President Bush should have been a vision of serenity. The war in Iraq was going superbly; just 19 days had passed, and already coalition troops were inside Baghdad, on the verge of giving him his second military victory as president. The hunt was on for chemical weapons, the original argument for going to war. And Bush, with his best ally by his side, was crossing new frontiers as a world leader, committing to talks on peace in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

But Bush showed little sign of inner contentment. As reporters challenged him about plans for postwar Iraq, he grew impatient, even indignant. His legs shifting behind the lectern, he gestured menacingly as if to choke an enemy, demonstrating the grip Saddam Hussein once had on Iraq. When an American correspondent asked him to clarify what role he envisioned for the United Nations in rebuilding the country--the question on everyone's mind that day--Bush sounded incredulous.

"We have said all along there needs to be a role for the United Nations," Bush said, clearly irritated. "We will keep repeating it. And evidently there's some skepticism here in Europe about whether or not I mean what I say. Saddam Hussein clearly knows I mean what I say."

Seconds later, Bush abruptly cut off questioning, a privilege usually assumed by the summit host.

Such combativeness from Bush has become increasingly routine, especially in dealing with reporters or anyone else who dares challenge his authority. Indeed, for a president who is closely stage-managed and prides himself on discipline, George W. Bush has let his temper flare publicly an unusual number of times. He has glared at the cameras, threatened his adversaries, even joked about running a dictatorship. The outbursts, although occasional, have fed the cowboy caricature that sums up why a large number of people around the world are so furious with his administration and, by extension, the United States.

Yet Bush's ire is more than an interesting impulse. It reflects a driving force behind his presidency. Bush detests being challenged, whether by reporters or political leaders. He is unyielding in his convictions, to the exclusion of all else. He is principled. But he is also stubborn, a trait that has become a guiding force of his governing style, a management tool, and perhaps even a new chapter in American history.

In a certain sense, it is this bold rigidity that best explains his first two years in office, which have seen an amazing string of triumphs few could have predicted when he won the election. From the $1.3 trillion tax cut to the midterm elections to the war in Iraq, Bush has repeatedly pushed all his chips into the middle of the poker table and dared his opponents to challenge him. And repeatedly, he has won. [...]

When he faces stiff opposition to any of his policies at home, Bush has his own negotiating style, which is to stand firm until it is clear defeat is imminent and then switch sides. He opposed creating a separate department of homeland security but then embraced it when it was inevitable. He dropped school vouchers from his education package the instant he knew he could not win. And just last month, when it appeared his proposed $726 billion tax cut would not survive in Congress intact, Bush preemptively lowered his target figure by one-third--acting as though he had always hoped for a tax cut totaling $550 billion. Then he sent his advisers out into the country on a two-week blitz to pressure senators to pass a tax package that size or larger--with the White House prepared to call it a victory.

Hard-right conservatives occasionally worry that Bush will "go wobbly," but with each apparent victory Bush has appeared emboldened to take his agenda even further.

Unyielding on principle, but willing to manuever ruthlessly to achieve his ends, and a reputation as an idiot...is there a lab where the GOP grows these guys every few decades for when the nation most needs them? Posted by Orrin Judd at May 4, 2003 8:30 AM