Do Process
Enough
Talk About Bush’s Past Mistakes, the Real Danger of a Second Bush Term is That
His Poor Judgment Will Impact Critical Issues In the Next Four Years
“We have a tendency -- I don't know if it's part of the
American character -- to say, 'Well, we'll sit down and we'll evaluate the
evidence, we'll draw a conclusion’” – Dick Cheney
INTRODUCTION
The debate thus far in the presidential election remains
focused on the substance of Bush’s decisions. One argues for or against the merits of the
An examination of Bush’s decision making process is particularly
critical in an assessment of this president because his proponents are quick to
compensate for an apparent lack of intelligence, minimal eloquence, and
incuriosity by justifying that he is a plain spoken man, he speaks form his
heart, uses his gut, relies
on instinct. I suppose that would be
desirable to some if the right decisions are made, yet in nearly
every objective measurable instance his “gut” has been wrong.
Bush maintains a consistent record of overstating the most
dire elements of an argument and ignoring or rejecting any contrary facts. He short cuts the decision making process,
leaves out inconvenient information, and doesn’t reexamine prior decisions even
when facts change. As articulated by
conservative commentator George F. Will: “this
administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think
and, having thought, to have second thoughts.” Bush’s decision making
process is simple to the point
of being simplistic.
I argue that Bush’s inability to make thoughtful decisions
is profoundly dangerous because by ignoring critical facts when presenting his
case to the American public we cannot determine the best course of action. It destroys the civil discourse because one
cannot rely on the President’s interpretation of event.
WHAT IS A FACT?
As a threshold matter, I think it’s important do define what
a fact is and the extent to which facts are relevant . A fact
is a piece of information that has objective reality, not subject to
interpretation. One can apply an analysis
to a fact and come up with a conclusion based on
those facts. A faulty analysis will
result is an improper, deceptive, or dishonest conclusion.
I’ll use the media analysis to Zell Miller’s RNC keynote
speech as an example for how one can be technically correct with facts, yet be
profoundly wrong in generating conclusions.
Miller asserted that John Kerry was weak on defense (a conclusion) based
primarily on a single vote Kerry made in 1992 (a fact). Miller justified his conclusion by repeating
the fact of a Kerry vote in 1992. You
certainly can’t argue when the debate is framed as such, Kerry did make that
vote there is no denying that.
But, to say that Kerry is against these programs,
that is attributing Miller’s interpretation of the 14 year old
vote and projecting that into a conclusion regarding how Kerry views
these programs and whether Kerry views them as valuable. Miller’s conclusion is not a fact, it has no
objective inherent reality.
Miller’s interpretation/analysis
ignores all other votes and statements Kerry has made over his time in public
service. Miller and others can come to a
conclusion based on the fact that Kerry voted a certain way 14 years ago that
Kerry is against these programs, but they would be wrong.
I’ll provide another example that I like.
Let’s say that the
Is that a fact?
Sure. One can’t dispute this
fact. You can research it and look it
up.
Here’s another fact.
Eli Manning signed a $45
million contract with the Giants this year, with $20 million
guaranteed. He graduated from the
Would the University be honest in jumping up and down saying
that you can make a ton of money if you become a marketing major since the
average salary is $500,000? It’s
true! It’s factually correct! Like Zell Miller I can waive a piece of paper
that provides the fact that the average salary is $500,000. But it doesn’t make the conclusion
or assertion that you’ll make a lot of money an honest one. It may be a fact that the average
salary is $500,000, but it’s not a fact that you’ll make that kind of money if you go
there, it’s a faulty conclusion. Just
like Miller’s faulty conclusion that Kerry is against those weapons
systems.
We’ll see this kind of faulty analysis throughout the
following examination of Bush’s decision making abilities.
BUSH’S DECISION MAKING IN
FULL FORCE DURING THE CAMPAIGN
The Bush Campaign provides an excellent analogy for how the
Bush Administration works. It’s probably more accurate for a challenger than an
incumbent, but presumably a candidate is presenting to the public how he and
his administration will conduct themselves in office. We can get a good sense
for how Bush will solve problems in the future (and give insight as to how he
solved problems in the past) by observing him throughout the campaign.
In running the campaign, Bush and his people have frequently
addressed problems/issues by presumably reviewing all of the facts and
circumstances surrounding and issue and through this analysis arrive at a
conclusion. I am going to work from the
assumption that Bush says what he means and means what he says – for he is the
Character President. I will ignore
tendencies to conclude that Bush is simply lying and proceed on the belief that Bush applied his reasoned
judgment when commenting on the following subjects. The examples are endless, I am only detailing
the ones that are freshest in my memory.
87 Billion Dollar Vote
Regarding Kerry’s decisiveness, the Bush Campaign has concluded
that Kerry is inconsistent. The primary
specter raised to support this claim is Kerry’s vote on the $87 billion bill to
fund the troops, then his vote “against” it. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the
legislative process in general (and the process surrounding the $87 billion
bill in question) knows that this is a failed analysis of the facts. Kerry
supported a different version of the bill, it was defeated – with of course the
threat of a presidential veto – then he voted against the bill in hopes that it
would be further negotiated. If we are to take Bush at his word that he says
what he means and means what he says, if he continually uses the $87 billion vote
as an example of indecisiveness, the only conclusion one can make is that Bush
is inept at solving problem. By not
making an effort to acquire the necessary knowledge to make an informed
decision, he is negligent to the point of being lethargic. He ignores settled facts and highlights ones
favoring his position in order to come to a conclusion.
When Bush sits on a stool in front of those who have signed
loyalty oaths to him and says that his opponent voted for the war and now is
against it and is therefore inconsistent, that’s simply wrong. There’s no room for interpretation, no gray
area of analysis, it is simply incorrect reasoning and it should be called on as
such. If Bush truly believes this, then
he is profoundly incompetent at drawing conclusions from facts.
Using Bush’s thought process, it would be perfectly
consistent to conclude that Saddam Hussein is an ally of the
Isn’t it dangerous for our president to possess such a
simplistic level of decision making ability?
Weak on Defense
The same can be said for the Bush campaign’s conclusion that
Kerry is weak on defense. They took a single vote made 14 years ago against a
broad omnibus appropriations bill and concluded that Kerry was against the
military. While not only being seriously dishonest, this ignores the fact that
Kerry has voted for just about every other military bill since (aside from
SDI). Again, in order to present its case, the Bush campaign reviewed all of
the available facts and ignored those disfavorable to it which resulted in a
failed conclusion.
Global Test
During the first presidential debate Kerry said the following.
I'll never give a veto to any country
over our security
No president, through all of American
history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way
necessary to protect the
But if and when you do it, Jim, you
have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where
your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
doing and you can prove to the world that you did it [past tense] for
legitimate reasons.
President Bush was standing 10 feet from Senator
Kerry, so I will presume that he heard the above statement. Bush interpreted Kerry’s remarks as
follows:
When he laid out the
Kerry doctrine, he said that
When our country is in
danger, it is not the president's job to take an international poll, the
president's job is to defend
No reasonable interpretation of Kerry’s statement would conclude
that Kerry would ask permission before defending
In August Kerry stated that he would be able to fight a more
sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to
our side and lives up to American values in history. Vice President Cheney misinterpreted this
phrase as meaning that Kerry would be sensitive against the terrorists. Such an interpretation evidences an
incompetence in comprehending what Kerry said and ignores everything else in
Kerry’s statement that supports a contrary position.
A Matter of Intelligence
In the third debate Bush said: “My opponent said this war is
a matter of intelligence and law enforcement. No, this war is a matter of using
every asset at our disposal to keep the American people protected.”
Kerry did say that intelligence and law enforcement was an
element to the war on terror, but never
dismissed military or other comprehensive action. Bush’s interpretation was clearly wrong and
evidences a reckless disregard of the truth.
On March 5th Kerry said that he didn’t want to
use the term “war” to describe the war of ideas in contrast to the
physical battlefield war. Bush, Cheney,
and Karen Hughes all failed in analyzing Kerry’s statement by continuously
misinterpreting it as Kerry being uncomfortable using the term “war.” Clearly, their analysis was incomplete and
erroneous.
I could go on and on with more examples, but a clear pattern
is revealed. Bush and his campaign
continually depend on dubious facts, ignore patent facts to the contrary, and
come to a pre-determined conclusion. That certainly seems to be a familiar modus
operandi. Similar to how the
PAST DECISIONS
<Coming Soon>