This, in particular, caught my eye:
The next morning, after my lecture to White House staffers and Agency officials, we were asked if we’d like to spend some time before lunch in the Oval Office with ‘the reviewer-in-chief’. My original thought was the same as Churchill’s when Baldwin offered him the chancellorship in 1924 — ‘Does the bloody duck swim?’ — but I confined myself to saying yes please. When the door opened and we were ushered in, the President called out in mock surprise: ‘Andrew Roberts!’ So I adopted the same surprised tone, crying: ‘George W. Bush!’ (Lucky wouldn’t have approved.) Then Susan and I had 40 minutes alone with the Leader of the Free World, talking about the war on terror. He was full of resilience and fortitude — as I’d taken for granted he would be — but he was also thoughtful, charming and widely read. If he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world, he’d be the sort of chap you’d have as a mate.
But what does being "the sort of chap you'd have as a mate," or "have a beer with" have to do with ANYTHING?!? Just because he is, on a personal level, not a completely repulsive human being doesn't mean he's a good president. Do you think people really thought FDR'd make a great drinking pal? No, but they voted for him anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same thing with Clinton; who cares how charming he is, was he a good president (I never liked him, even though I'm a liberal Democrat; far to unctuous for my taste)?!? People have somehow gotten the idea that "I like you personally"="you'd be a good leader," which is just as ridiculous and untrue as "saints"="good leaders."
Ah, but Frank, that was not the reason I quoted that passage. Of course, one expects a successful politician to be engaging personally. I quoted it because of this: "... he was also thoughtful, charming and widely read," which runs counter to so much we hear about Bush. Not that being widely read means that one will be a good president, either. And I'm not going to get into rating Bush as a president. What interested me was the matter of perception.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't ranting at YOU, Frank, since I actually got that you wanted us to see the "widely read" part (I know you so well!), but at the person who wrote that for putting in the "sort of chap you'd have as a mate" dreck. It's not just him, everyone, of every political stripe, does it nowadays. Now, I'm not saying I think the president should be a miserable, socially awkward type, or that I don't have personal opinions about candidates that color my perceptions of them, but I just get really irate about the "oh, I'd have a beer with them, so I'll vote for them!" thinking. It has nothing to do with anything and is all part of the problem we currently face in our political system.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's so absurd that anyone, Bush or Clinton or whoever, would ACTUALLY have a beer with "regular folks" or be their friends is laughable. Politicians are only "friends" with sycophants and those who give them money. I know Bush likes to go play cowboy, but he's really a rich boy from Andover and Yale who would have nothing in common with a "regular" person.