The Collective Presidency

There's a point that's often made about President George W. Bush which I find interesting. It is said that while his administration is corrupt, Bush the human being is not. How could this be?

The problem with Bush is that he lacks the intellectual capability and confidence to lead. He has to defer to others and trust in their judgment. This is attractive to people who have risky and/or corrupt policy goals, because its an opportunity for them to realize their agendas without being held accountable (or so many of them might think). The result is a president who is a mere representative of others' interests.

Take this recent controversy over at the Justice Department. Allegedly, Karl Rove instructed Alberto Gonzales to fire eight prosecutors for political reasons. Because of the vacuum of leadership, Rove is able to advance his own corrupt political agenda at the expense of the President's popularity. (Granted, Rove has suffered severe blows to his popularity in the past few years, but keep in mind that Rove is not a politician. Popularity ought not be a priority of his.) Someone like Rove would be less likely to pull these tricks under other administrations, since past presidents would probably have been smart enough to see the kind of weasel he is. Under other presidents, he would probably have been shutout or fired.

The same goes for Wolfowitz and the other neocons who worked behind the scenes to convince the President to invade Iraq. Bush was the perfect opportunity for them, since he was naïve enough to buy into their insanely idealistic ideology. Other presidents wouldn't have been willing to take such a risk as to invade Iraq, but Bush is an unintelligent president, who needs to defer to others; Wolfowitz knew this.

Bush's legacy will be that dumb people don't make good presidents. That's a rather obvious point if you ask me. It's a shame we had to learn it the hard way.