Balkinization: Dr. Oedipus, call your answering service

Dr. Oedipus, call your answering service

As I read this story in the Washington post about how Bush, Sr.'s consigliere, James Baker, has quiely forming a working group to propose face-saving solutions to the Iraq mess, I thought how George W. Bush's Presidency has simply been a repetition of his life story. Overwhelmed by the shadow of his highly successful father whom he both loves and envies, he tries repeatedly to be his own man by finding something that he can succeed at. Each time he draws on his father's (and family) connections to get opportunities and plum jobs, and each time he fails miserably, until he must once again employ his father's connections to bail him out and clean up his mess. And because he has the connections, it's usually the third parties like his business associates, investors and stockholders, who wind up holding the bag.

Of course, each time he fails and has to be bailed out by his daddy only makes him angrier that he can't surpass his father, which leads him to try ever grander things, leading to ever more spectacular messes, and so on.

Now, just as he turns 60, he is failing just about as spectacularly as you can without throwing the world into thermonuclear war.

I really wish he had just become Commissioner of Baseball instead. I mean, I really love baseball, I really do, and I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to it. But I love America more.

Posted 7:14 AM by JB [link]

Comments:

Interesting family dynamic as I'm sure Jeb would be the first to tell you that he's been a successful Gov. I guess this puts George in Marvin's camp of the siblings. We all knew history, whether it be for a nation or a family, is the best advisor.

# posted by

mainsailset : 10:22 AM

This pseudo analysis is pretty laughable. Yes, Iraq is a mess. But let's not cherry pick facts to fit your cute oedipus comparison. The other side would be Bush has greatly succeded where his father failed. He was governor of Texas - a state that historically was hostile to Republicans running for governor. He defeated Ann Richards a widely respected polician that everyone expected him to lose to. He was re-elected in a state in which a Republican had never been re-elected as governor (or hadn't in many years) He succeeded precisely where his father most conspicuously failed - to win two terms and he even increased his winning margin significantly the second time around. Under Bush's watch the US has not suffered another successful terrorist attack - despite the efforts of Al-Qaeda.

And your assertion that he gets "angrier and angrier" each time he fails? You are just pulling that out of your rear. You have no idea and you know that.

But why bother letting facts get in the way of your oh so compelling narrative?

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 11:31 AM

he even increased his winning margin significantly the second time around.

Which was pretty easy to do, since he didn't win at all the first time.

He was re-elected in a state in which a Republican had never been re-elected as governor (or hadn't in many years)

This is a silly argument in light of the switch in Texas politics over the last 40 years or so.

Under Bush's watch the US has not suffered another successful terrorist attack - despite the efforts of Al-Qaeda.

Another one? Wasn't the last one on his watch? Is that your best case for Bush's "success"? He did better than that running the Texas Rangers.

# posted by

Mark Field : 12:55 PM

Mark,

A. In 2004, Bush was the first President in several terms to actually win with a majority of the votes.

B. Ann Richards was a very popular politician in Texas and Bush was deinitely the underdog.

C. Most pundits and scholars in the aftermath 9/11 figured we would suffer additional attacks in the years to come. We haven't for 5 years. You can argue exactly how much credit Bush should get. But, the situation we find ourselves in, without another attack, is one that very few foresaw.

Just try looking past your blind, kneejerk hatred.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 1:21 PM

Very clever tactical retreat, hls.

Is it really your view that we should consider Bush a success because Al Qaeda has not attacked US soil since 9/11? It's on that basis that you think "Bush has greatly succeded where his father failed"?

My dislike of Bush may be many things, but it isn't blind. The man has been an utter disaster as President. He's not yet in Andrew Johnson or James Buchanan territory, but he does have two more years to go. Trading Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines is starting to seem like a highlight of his career.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:58 PM

Mark,

My comments were in response to Professor Balkin's Oedipus narrative. Bush's success with Al-Qaeda was to show that Bush has not been an abject failure. And more broadly speaking, that Bush has succeeded at the very things that his father failed at - quite conspicuously.

It wasn't meant as a tactical retreat, just a reformulation.

You do blindly hate him - because you are completely unable to give him credit where credit is properly due. For example, his winning in Texas against Ann Richards, his re-election, and prevention of attacks against the US.

You argue all you want that other things he has done haven't been for the benefit of this country. But you are fundamentally unable to give to see any of the good that he is done - that is blind hatred.

(Feel free to make a half-hearted attempt at rehabilitation by making a few perfunctory remarks about Bush doing well at X, but it won't save you).

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 2:43 PM

For example, his ... prevention of attacks against the US.

I don't give Neville Chamberlain credit for refusing to sell out Poland.

But you are fundamentally unable to give to see any of the good that he is done - that is blind hatred.

Winning elections as governor and President does not constitute "good that he has done". You've yet to supply an example of "good". "Success", in the limited sense you've supplied, does not equal "good".

Feel free to make a half-hearted attempt at rehabilitation by making a few perfunctory remarks about Bush doing well at X

I'm not aware that he has done well at X (at least where X = any public good in the last 5 3/4 years). Perhaps you have an example in mind.

# posted by

Mark Field : 2:58 PM

The other side would be Bush has greatly succeded where his father failed. He was governor of Texas - a state that historically was hostile to Republicans running for governor.
Exactly - George H.W. Bush was never able to successfully become governor of Texas, despite so many failed attempts.

He defeated Ann Richards a widely respected polician that everyone expected him to lose to.
Ann Richards - indomitable nemisis of George Bush the Elder

He was re-elected in a state in which a Republican had never been re-elected as governor (or hadn't in many years)
GHWB had so many difficulties keeping the govership of Texas. Still an impressive political feat.

He succeeded precisely where his father most conspicuously failed - to win two terms and he even increased his winning margin significantly the second time around.
That he did, true enough.

Under Bush's watch the US has not suffered another successful terrorist attack - despite the efforts of Al-Qaeda.
Having the airspace at the July 2001 G8 summit closed down because of a threat that terrorists might crash planes into the summit, and then to have terroirsts succeed in the US a few months later is in no way a failure - its actually success under the GWB admin's new definition of 'success'.

# posted by

John : 2:59 PM

If geo's post was not meant to be satirical, clearly there is a big perception gap.

Darn. Hard job! Darn, Gore/Kerry are soooo clueless ... unlike Bush. Main problem are two people. Of course, if he can be so easily controlled by two people ...

And, it's nice to know that maybe just maybe you wouldn't support criminal behavior if you know the Dems get better candidates. All their fault.

Must be that "envy" thing on my end. So sad really.

# posted by

Joe : 10:45 PM

btw Texas is a Republican state, including a rather conservative democrat lieutenant gov. at the time which Ann Richards surprisingly won. She underestimated Bush, who had local backing and was after all the President's son, and lost re-election.

I'm not really too impressed there.

# posted by

Joe : 10:52 PM

hls, good on you for the loyalty. in a profession dominated in the non-napoleonic US by precedent, loyalty would appear a career-advancing attribute.

as objective analysis, I am afraid your comments tend to be grave failures, but I defer to others here. I am too entertained by the analogy of precedent and loyalty to otherwise-abysmal politicians to do more.

here's hoping you get nice and rich, but not so much you can actually afford to influence political campaigns someday.

# posted by

wcw : 1:08 AM

"Now, just as he turns 60, he is failing just about as spectacularly as you can without throwing the world into thermonuclear war."

Hey! Not so fast... Its only year 6.... We got til Jan 2009.

Act 1 911
Act 2 Invasion
Act 3 Katrina
Act 4 ???

This is a four act play... and its only about 3/4ths over....

# posted by

WinterBear TrueHeart : 12:58 AM