David Brooks Loves Bush: "His Self-Confidence Is The Most Remarkable Feature"

David Brooks Enters Bush’s ‘Universe,’ Walks Away Entranced By President’s ‘Self-Confidence’

Describing it as an encounter that was “like entering a different universe,” New York Times columnist David Brooks recounts a recent conversation he had with President Bush in the White House. In the editorial entitled “Heroes and History,” Brooks writes:

I left the 110-minute session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency.

..............

Enamored with Bush’s self-confidence, Brooks writes of the two sources from which it flows:

The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy <…>

Second, Bush remains energized by the power of the presidency. Some presidents complain about the limits of the office. But Bush, despite all the setbacks, retains a capacious view of the job and its possibilities.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/17/brooks-bobo-bush/

SNORT!!! Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw.

Maybe David Brooks should spend some more time looking at that big idea to find out whether it is reasonable.

Nah - that would require effort, and if there is one thing our modern press corps disdains, it's effort.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

It's called "Self Delusion" and it's freaking scary.

the shrub ignores them. I'd be self-confident too if I believed I was king of the world.

So much for the presidential power being the "power to persuade." Bush prefers to use deceit to grab power anyway he can and then dig in against public and elite opinion.

What an embarrassment for the NY Times....then again, The NY Times lost its cred a few years back....what a fucking rag! or is it a bad joke?

Usually he is a total idiot, but in this case, he's constructed a subtle argument supporting Bush's being out of touch with reality. Think Progress makes no mention of the last few paragraphs of the column, in which Brooks seems to be making fun of Bush's "boy's club" view of history. Brooks is too much of a weinie to come right out and say it, but his column actually strongly implies that Bush is a myopic fool who is going to have his ass buried by forces way beyond his control.

Yea, BIZARRO WORLD!!!

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/658059

Problem is, * doesn't have fucking clue what "democracy" is, judging from how he's limiting it here.

and Fukuyama has disowned the whole neocon cabal.

* never had an idea in his life.

just keep sipping on the WH kool-aid Dave.

and his grip on reality. It is obscured by its having been presented in that annoying toadyish Brooks way. I was reading it practically with my jaw dropped, wondering how the hell anyone could take seriously a column in which *Bush* rambles on about *leadership* as a sign of reason for optimism about Bush and his grasp of Iraq.

But the column takes a turn at the end and lets a wiser man from history have the last word.

Here is the kicker, which Think Progress doesn't refer to (my emphases):

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/opinion/17brooks.html?hp


When Bush talks about world affairs more generally, he talks about national leaders. When he is asked to analyze Iraq, he talks about Maliki. With Russia, it’s Putin. With Europe, it’s Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and the rest.

He is confident in his ability to read other leaders: Who has courage? Who has a chip on his shoulder? And he is confident that in reading the individual character of leaders, he is reading the tablet that really matters. History is driven by the club of those in power. When far-sighted leaders change laws and institutions, they have the power to transform people.

Many will doubt this, but Bush is a smart and compelling presence in person, and only the whispering voice of Leo Tolstoy holds one back.

Tolstoy had a very different theory of history. Tolstoy believed great leaders are puffed-up popinjays. They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations — from the bottom up.

According to this view, societies are infinitely complex. They can’t be understood or directed by a group of politicians in the White House or the Green Zone. Societies move and breathe on their own, through the jostling of mentalities and habits. Politics is a thin crust on the surface of culture. Political leaders can only play a tiny role in transforming a people, especially when the integral fabric of society has dissolved.

If Bush’s theory of history is correct, the right security plan can lead to safety, the right political compromises to stability. But if Tolstoy is right, then the future of Iraq is beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks and the understanding of any chief executive.

way Brooks ends his column is itself a commentary on the limited reaches of Bush's mind. He thinks he lives in a world of "Deciders" and that he is their match.

his hold on the English language.

An important piece is being ingored--the last four graphs:



Many will doubt this, but Bush is a smart and compelling presence in person, and only the whispering voice of Leo Tolstoy holds one back.

Tolstoy had a very different theory of history. Tolstoy believed great leaders are puffed-up popinjays. They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations — from the bottom up.

According to this view, societies are infinitely complex. They can’t be understood or directed by a group of politicians in the White House or the Green Zone. Societies move and breathe on their own, through the jostling of mentalities and habits. Politics is a thin crust on the surface of culture. Political leaders can only play a tiny role in transforming a people, especially when the integral fabric of society has dissolved.

If Bush’s theory of history is correct, the right security plan can lead to safety, the right political compromises to stability. But if Tolstoy is right, then the future of Iraq is beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks and the understanding of any chief executive.

:)

I recall that he described this oil grab "Bush's Epic Gamble" and in doing so, had no problem praising Junior's derring do while utterly ignoring the consequences to those infinitely complex societies, intended and unintended.

In this case, though, it's unfair to attack him for laying out Bush's "argument" when the conclusion of his piece totally devastates that argument. To be fair, people should acknowledge what Brooks is really saying about Bush in this column, not attack him by pretending he's saying almost the opposite. This column is critical of Bush.

column.

He spends all of his time trying to game the system in one way or the other. The only "bush doctrine" is that of preemptive war based on bogus information from shady characters.

What the hell's that useless failure got to feel self-confident about? Hm?

Ignoramus!:spank:

an hour later he was probably curled up on the floor in a fetal position sobbing uncontrollably.

:evilfrown:

Brooks' piece strongly reminds me of North Korean press coverage of some of Kim Jong Il's birthday parties. Fawning, sycophantic rubbish.

of reasonable pundit, but when push come to shove, as in this article, his true colors are revealed.