Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus thinks the Bush Presidency suffers from too much “manliness.”
In response to the upcoming book “Manliness,” by Harvey C. Mansfield (a conservative professor of government at Harvard University) — in which his thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as “confidence in the face of risk,” is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute — columnist Marcus says:
No wimpiness worries now. This is an administration headed by a cowboy boot-wearing brush-clearer, backstopped by a quail-shooting fly fisherman comfortable with long stretches of manly silence — very “Brokeback Mountain,” except this crowd considers itself too manly for such PC Hollywood fare. “I would be glad to talk about ranchin’, but I haven’t seen the movie,” Bush told a questioner.
She further writes:
The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield’s vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined. (Okay, there were some unfortunate, testosterone-filled moments, too.) Bill Clinton’s would-be successor, Al Gore, was mocked for enlisting Naomi Wolf to help him emerge as an alpha male; after that, French-speaking John Kerry had to give up windsurfing and don hunting gear to prove he was a real man. And Bush’s father, of course, had to battle the Wimp Factor. Mansfield recalls Thatcher’s manly admonition to 41 on the eve of the Persian Gulf War: “Don’t go wobbly on me, George.”
But is that really the problem? Marcus continues:
But the manliness of the Bush White House has a darker side that has proved more curse than advantage. The prime example is the war in Iraq: the administration’s assertion of the right to engage in preemptive and unilateral war; the resolute avoidance of debate about the “slam-dunk” intelligence on weapons of mass destruction; the determined lack of introspection or self-doubt about the course of the war; and the swaggering dismissal of dissenting views as the carping of those not on the team.
I have written here at length about my agreements and disagreements with the various policies of President Bush. But one thing I will not fault Mr. Bush on is his “gumption” or “stick-to-it-iveness.” And there is one issue over which I will absolutely insist on a president displaying those qualities: terrorism. I want a president unwavering in his or her commitment to keep my country safe. Marcus writes:
What this country could use is a little less manliness — and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt.
I submit: regarding terrorism, that’s precisely what we do want: more “manliness.”
THIS JUST IN:
In a further display of heinous “manliness,” President Bush said the decision about when to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq will fall to future presidents and Iraqi leaders, suggesting that U.S. involvement will continue at least through 2008.
Acknowledging the public’s growing unease with the war – and election-year skittishness among fellow Republicans – the president nonetheless vowed to keep U.S. soldiers in the fight.
“If I didn’t believe we could succeed, I wouldn’t be there. I wouldn’t put those kids there,” Bush declared.
He also stood by embattled Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.
BUSH ALSO BLASTS HELEN THOMAS:
Mr. Bush called on Helen Thomas today for the first time in literally a few years, and she wasted no time in an attempt to slam the president and his administration:
Q: I’d like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet — your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth — what was your real reason? You have said it wasn’t oil — quest for oil, it hasn’t been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise — in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist — is that — I didn’t want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect —
Q: Everything —
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.
Q: — everything I’ve heard —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it’s just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We — when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I’m never going to forget it. And I’m never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that’s why I went into Iraq — hold on for a second —
Q: They didn’t do anything to you, or to our country.
THE PRESIDENT: Look — excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That’s where al Qaeda trained —
Q: I’m talking about Iraq —
THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That’s where — Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That’s where they trained. That’s where they plotted. That’s where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans. I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That’s why I went to the Security Council; that’s why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences —
Q: — go to war —
THE PRESIDENT: — and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
Once again — too much “manliness?” I think not.
