Bully For Us?

The pundit spin from the first debate has raised, inadvertently perhaps, a personal characteristic of George W. Bush that I have long suspected was true of the man: Bush is a schoolyard bully, arrogant and aggressive when he believes that no one will challenge him, but becoming petulant and losing much of his air of authority as soon as someone stands up to him. Here is David Broder in the Washington Post:

Bush fares very badly when he is forcefully challenged. It makes you worry about his strength in circumstances he does not completely control. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the president has received a remarkably free ride. He rarely faces the media. He speaks only to partisan crowds; critics risk arrest if they show up. There is little evidence that Bush is challenged by his staff or his Cabinet. He is most comfortable when he sticks to talking points.

But suddenly, when Bush was confronted for 90 minutes by an opponent willing to go straight at him, he fumbled, he hesitated and he scowled. The Bush Scowl is destined take its place with the Gore Sigh and the Dean Scream.

Dana Milbank's story in the Post discusses Bush's facial expressions during the debate. The punditry has become particularly interested in these expressions, probably because they think they makes a candidate less likeable, and Bush's strong suit is his down-to-earth-likeability among various segments of the American public. I'm more interested in what they suggest about the man himself:

Bush has flashed such expressions [of petulance] -- and worse -- at reporters when they ask him hostile questions. But the public has generally not seen the president's more petulant side, in part because he is rarely challenged in a public venue. He has held fewer news conferences than any modern predecessor, Congress is in his party's control, and he has a famously loyal staff. In rare instances when Bush has been vigorously challenged -- most recently in interviews with an Irish television journalist and a French magazine -- he has reacted with similar indignation.

Bush's bullying manner probably reinforces the views of our traditional allies that the country he leads has become an arrogant bully as well. (I suspect that our enemies will think we are a bully no matter what we do). But an equally important reason to be worried about having a bully for a Commander-in-Chief is something that Broder suggests: You can deal with a bully, or at least discomfit him, by standing up to him, because he is basically insecure and he can be shaken up or confused when his authority is directly challenged. If Bush is a bully, as I believe he is, he may not be a good Commander-in-Chief when the chips are down because he will not do well when he has to face cold hard reality, or as Broder puts it, one is worried "about his strength in circumstances he does not completely control." For example, although he showed resolve in attacking Afghanistan after 9-11 (I will pass over his immediate reaction to that particular crisis) he dropped the ball when winning the peace in Afghanistan became difficult, and turned his attentions to Iraq, with the result that the situation in both countries is dire.

Bush is a very able politician but is terrible at the details of policy. He has done particularly well when he holds all the cards and controls his environment, when his advisors shield him from difficult and complicated problems and when he finds himself in a position where he can make basic decisions and stick to them resolutely. But this strategy cannot continue to work indefinitely. (You can read a longer discussion of this point, which analyzes Bush's Presidency in the context of Machiavelli's The Prince here.) This Administration has tried to put a happy face on its failures, and its political skills are such that it has succeeded in fooling about half the country. But at some point reality intrudes, and a President who cannot handle recalcitrant experience and who wilts when others stand up to him is simply not a reliable leader.