Bush's last desperate acts
posted by Liberal Eagle at 2:45 PM
A reader on Josh Marshall's "Talking Points Memo" made an observation about the Bush Junta that I've been turning over in my head:
This is, I think, a useful way of viewing the current situation, and also an excellent argument for checks on power. In cases of drastic mismanagement, of a company or of a country, there reaches a point where those in charge are screwed if they do nothing, and even if they're probably screwed anyway, they may as well take big risks, because they have everything to gain if something happens to work out, and nothing more to lose if it doesn't.
The problem being that the shareholders, or the public, do still have a lot to lose.
George W. Bush is doubtless, on some level, aware that right now, he's looking at being remembered as one of history's most disastrously bad presidents. (Look, people, I told you so; you should have listened in 2004.) If he pulls out of Iraq now, no one else will die for his mistakes, but any possibility for his reputation to be salvaged is completely gone at that point.
Now, things like troop "surges" or goading Iran into war look like awful ideas from our point of view. But, Bush's reputation can't suffer any more than it has already; history can't judge him any more harshly for whatever he does next than it's already going to for what he's done already. So he might as well try insane stuff, in case something works and he ends up hailed as a Truman-esque visionary.
The rest of us, though, have more on the line than George Bush's standing in history. Trillions in debt. Thousands of lives. Our national goodwill, further squandered. Bush is gambling with our money, lives, and reputation, because he has nothing to lose by fucking up even more than he has already. But we could still lose a lot more.
And this is exactly why power should have checks on it, why a leader in Bush's position should not be left in office to try more and more risky and desperate things. It's why the "unitary executive" theory where the President ultimately has no checks on his power is dangerous.
It always works this way, with leaders who have gambled big-time and lost. In the latter days of the second world war, Hitler was sending guys in their 80s and elementary-school-age boys out to fight because that's who he had left. Sure, he was sacrificing lives of innocents to protect himself from almost-certain defeat, but there's a big difference, in his position, between almost-certain and certain, so he tried what was left for him to try, even though it was in no one's interests but his. He had nothing to lose, but Germany still did.
It always works that way with failed leaders. Bush has failed. The opposition's job, now, is to make sure that, between now and when he leaves office, he has as little power to take stupid risks as possible.
It seems like an appropriate analogy for current administration is a Chapter 11 reorganization (like say, oh I don't know, maybe Enron?). In a bankruptcy case, management has every incentive to risk everything it can to save its own hide. If it goes a little (or a lot) further into debt, what's the difference? But if management takes a big risk and it works out, then they look great. The only problem is that it's not in the other stakeholders' interest at a certain point for management to play Russian roulette with the company. The best solution is always to put in new management that can put the bigger picture interests ahead of saving its own hide.
This is, I think, a useful way of viewing the current situation, and also an excellent argument for checks on power. In cases of drastic mismanagement, of a company or of a country, there reaches a point where those in charge are screwed if they do nothing, and even if they're probably screwed anyway, they may as well take big risks, because they have everything to gain if something happens to work out, and nothing more to lose if it doesn't.
The problem being that the shareholders, or the public, do still have a lot to lose.
George W. Bush is doubtless, on some level, aware that right now, he's looking at being remembered as one of history's most disastrously bad presidents. (Look, people, I told you so; you should have listened in 2004.) If he pulls out of Iraq now, no one else will die for his mistakes, but any possibility for his reputation to be salvaged is completely gone at that point.
Now, things like troop "surges" or goading Iran into war look like awful ideas from our point of view. But, Bush's reputation can't suffer any more than it has already; history can't judge him any more harshly for whatever he does next than it's already going to for what he's done already. So he might as well try insane stuff, in case something works and he ends up hailed as a Truman-esque visionary.
The rest of us, though, have more on the line than George Bush's standing in history. Trillions in debt. Thousands of lives. Our national goodwill, further squandered. Bush is gambling with our money, lives, and reputation, because he has nothing to lose by fucking up even more than he has already. But we could still lose a lot more.
And this is exactly why power should have checks on it, why a leader in Bush's position should not be left in office to try more and more risky and desperate things. It's why the "unitary executive" theory where the President ultimately has no checks on his power is dangerous.
It always works this way, with leaders who have gambled big-time and lost. In the latter days of the second world war, Hitler was sending guys in their 80s and elementary-school-age boys out to fight because that's who he had left. Sure, he was sacrificing lives of innocents to protect himself from almost-certain defeat, but there's a big difference, in his position, between almost-certain and certain, so he tried what was left for him to try, even though it was in no one's interests but his. He had nothing to lose, but Germany still did.
It always works that way with failed leaders. Bush has failed. The opposition's job, now, is to make sure that, between now and when he leaves office, he has as little power to take stupid risks as possible.
<< Home