BOOK REVIEW
A new book scrutinises the Bush administration's policies
GREG LOWE
If you love President George W. Bush, then Sidney Blumenthal's latest book The Strange Death of Republican America: Chronicles of a Collapsing Party will get your blood boiling. On the other hand, if you think 'Shrub' has made more than the odd questionable policy decision, read on.
Blumenthal is an established journalist who writes for a number of publications, including The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian. He was an assistant to President Bill Clinton, and currently works as a senior aid to Senator Hillary Clinton. A staunch Democrat and pundit on US politics, he has penned a number of books, the latest being a collection of more than 70 weekly columns written in 2006 and 2007, in which he dissects the Bush administration's policy, or lack thereof, with surgical precision.
While Bush is clearly in the author's sights, Blumenthal aims for a larger target, those who he considers to be the progenitors of the current "Bushthink", Vice-President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Ronald Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo-conservative movement, who have attempted to construct an "imperial presidency".
 |
THE STRANGE DEATH OF REPUBLICAN AMERICA: Chronicles of a Collapsing Party
By Sidney Blumenthal
Union Square Press, 2008, 368pp, 838 baht
ISBN 978-1402757891 |
"The Bush presidency is the most radical we have ever seen. It has pushed beyond the envelope with its numerous policies, which have had a disastrous effect domestically, internationally and politically for both Republican and Democrat parties," Blumenthal told the Bangkok Post speaking from his Washington DC home.
"I cannot remember anything that has more damaged the prestige and reputation of our country than policy pursued by Bush. A policy that has a view of the presidency as an office that should be unaccountable, unchecked and unbalanced by the other branches of government and the press."
Throughout the book, he chronicles how Bush's advisors cynically attempted to rebuild a failing presidency through the lens of September 11, with the war on terror, a pre-emptive war in Iraq, and the development of torture policies and renditions.
While Karl Rove's original neo-conservative plan was to unite the Republicans and build a party so powerful it would banish the Democrats into political obscurity for generations to come, Blumenthal argues through his columns that by "pushing monstrous panaceas to extremes", the plans have rebounded "shattering the Republican coalition" that has dominated the party since 1968.
"This book chronicles the collapse of Bush's dream," he said. "It shows how American politics continues to undermine those that have grandiose visions, but do not understand the world around them. How rapidly power can fall away."
By default, the subject matter of The Strange Death of Republican America is nothing new. Readers may have heard it all before. But what the book does provide is a linear account of just how catastrophic the decision-making has been.
While the effect of this leaves readers punch-drunk and dizzy from the litany of bad policy decision after bad policy decision, perhaps what is more shocking is the arrogant bullishness of the neo-conservatives and their refusal to listen to their own party.
 |
| Sidney Blumenthal. — Photo courtesy of ROBERT GODDYN |
This led to many southern Republican candidates distancing themselves from the president in the 2006 mid-term elections. Some even refused the once much coveted photo-opportunities with the President Bush through fear of guilt by association in the eyes of their constituents.
Much is also made of what Blumenthal calls an "Oedipal battle" between George W. Bush and his father. George Bush Sr was one of the most relevantly skilled and experienced individuals, in terms of launching military actions in Iraq, but the current president refused to seek his advice. "There is a higher father that I appeal to," - i.e. God - was President George W. Bush's response to a journalist's question over whether he had sought paternal guidance over the planned invasion of Iraq.
When Bush was elected to power in 2000, it was in many ways due to the efforts of James Baker handling of the "hanging chads" fiasco and the recount in Florida. In 2006, Baker was brought in to head the Iraq Study Group alongside Republican Lee Hamilton. The bi-partisan ISG published 79 recommendations on how to address the disintegrating security situation in Iraq, stating that there was no "magic bullet" to the problem and that there needed to be a considered change in policy. The recommendations from the man who secured Bush's presidency fell on deaf ears. The president responded by saying "stay the course" and implemented a surge of US troops in the country.
Blumenthal argues fairly convincingly that "staying the course" has become the dictum of the Bush Whitehouse. After the failure of Iraq and the war on terror Bush's victory is tied to his steadfast refusal to withdraw troops. Any successor, Republican or Democrat who pulls out will be seen as the losers according to this perspective, not the original architect of the disaster.
"Bush sees himself as a great liberator, dealing with unpopularity like President Harry Truman," said Blumenthal. "I think historians will see it differently."
In part, the book must be considered a polemic with Blumenthal doing little to draw to light any positive aspects of the Bush presidency. The repetition of points and comments in weekly columns grates at times, but as it is a linear analysis, perhaps any irritation should be directed at the source of the problem.
This perspective comes as no surprise from a Democrat commentator going for his opponent's jugular. Blumenthal puts together an articulate and convincing argument about the universal dangers of the extreme neo-conservatives.
It is worth mentioning on balance that Blumenthal's 1986 book, The Rise of the Counter Establishment, which examined the development and propagation of conservative ideology in US politics, and how under Reagan it bolstered Republican power, was written in part out of admiration of how this transition was managed. He also argues that the comparison of Reagan and Bush as two presidents short in intellectual capacity, but high on bravado is unfounded.
"Reagan was a negotiator. He was a union leader of the Actors and Screenwriters Guild. As president he compromised," he said, adding that Bush stands alone as a president who refuses to change and continues to repeat mistakes.
Bush's image as a straight-talking decision-making Texan, proud of his swagger, is also repeatedly called into question throughout the book. "Bush is passive, petulant and sees things in black and white," said Blumenthal. "He puts forward the image of him as the decider, but he is manipulable. He is a remarkably incurious president who receives his information neatly packaged by neo-cons.
"I don't believe Bush done anything but ratified the ideas of others. He defines himself, his policy and presidency through them."
Despite the internal ruptures that have appeared in the Republican coalition, Blumenthal offers stern words of warning to his own party. That complacency breeds failure.
"I would say just as the Republicans through hubris and myopia have reinvented the Democrats, we have the same potential for reinventing the Republicans once again."
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Next
