The Bush Force-Field

Rumsfeld has been taking hits from just about every direction lately, especially conservatives (e.g. Bill Kristol). Check out this interesting Washington Post Op-Ed from the conservative editor of the Weekly Standard.

It amazes me how George Bush has been so good at avoiding blame or responsibility—at least in a political sense. It’s like he has an impenetrable political force-field covering the oval office. This is something that Bush built. While the Office itself carries weight, not all presidents enjoy such unwavering support for so little production. Where’s the Bush backlash when it comes to concerns about unexpected difficulties, bad decision making, misjudging the “insurgency” and implementing a questionable war plan? It’s remarkable how our president has managed to avoid real scrutiny. During the election season, he did a wonderful job convincing us that if we’re too critical of the war, we’re being disloyal to our troops (and Poland!), so he protected himself sufficiently. Since the election, the worst he gets from people has to do with firing Rumsfeld.

Could it have something to do with the ridiculously high premium he places on loyalty? Could it be that conservatives use avenues like Rumsfeld to criticize policies so that they’re able to voice their concerns about the Administration’s policies without risking the trust they have from the President—a president who appears to value trust and loyalty over anything in his political reality?

I’m convinced that Bush is a genius (I mean politically only. As a public servant and executive, he’s a bottom dweller). But, it concerns me that the impenetrable Oval Office Force-Field seems to find it’s density in loyalty. Loyalty can be virtuous, but not in the place of critical analysis. I want a president who values diversity of opinion more than loyalty. Of course, that would mean no Oval Office Force-Field.

By the way, why was there no representative from organized labor in the recent economic summit?