Newspaper OpEd (2006)

Robert P. Watson

IN THE WHITE HOUSE IT IS ABOUT CHARACTER

In the White House character is king. The Founders designed a vague but highly individualized office of the presidency, one dependent more on the character of the office holder than on the formal powers granted to him in the Constitution.

Consider, for instance, the vast differences between presidents such as Buchanan and Lincoln, or between Herbert Hoover and FDR, despite the fact that they served consecutive terms. Change the president, and you change history.

So what emerges when the current president is put on the couch? So often has President Bush given the back of his hand to critics, the press, Congress, world leaders, and even members of his own party that one wonders about his judgment and temperament. Add to that Bush's contempt for viewpoints that contradict his own and his disinterest in facts or history and it is time to question his fitness for the office.

Consider Bush's decision to remain wedded to one disastrously flawed policy after another, irrespective of the results, or his tone deafness to the chorus of recommendations from respected bipartisan commissions, Congress, scholars, and world leaders.

The answer appears to be a president in denial of the reality of events swirling around him, of which he is the cause. The result is that we are now in the predicament of crafting policy designed to minimize the catastrophe of the Bush years both at home and abroad.

After alienating everyone beyond his ever-shrinking inner-circle, Bush has become hunkered down and isolated. This is problematic for any president (LBJ and Nixon come to mind), but for one as un-inquisitive and so poorly read as Bush it only amplifies his already overly-simplistic and shockingly uninformed view of the world.

In response to criticism and constructive advice – and he seems not to recognize the difference – Bush boasts of his "resolve" to "stay the course." Yet such rigidity in the face of failure is folly, and his actions might better be explained by the smugness that comes from believing you alone are somehow right while the rest of the world is delusional.

Bush's behavior might also stem from his apparent lack of empathy. This is seen in the flippant manner in which he has conducted himself: adolescent boasts of being a "war president"; reckless taunts to terrorists to "Bring `em on!"; smirking defiance to legitimate questions about the conduct of the war; and jokes about not finding WMD, even though they were given as his reason for invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

George W. Bush was elected to the presidency despite a life of few accomplishments. A former cheerleader, class clown, and poor student, Bush went on to avoid serving in war, run each of his oil companies into bankruptcy, lose a congressional campaign, twice get arrested (for alcohol and disorderly conduct) and succumb to alcoholism. By his own admission, he was an irresponsible and mischievous young man, yet was given a free pass on his numerous indiscretions, while never accepting responsibility for his actions.

Ironically, in 2000, voters were thus left to judge him on the one "issue" on which he campaigned: Curiously, his character. But, given his recklessness, arrogance, and a lack of personal responsibility as president, Bush's character is in question. Because the stakes are larger in the White House than private life, it is near certain that history will not be as forgiving of Bush's behavior as were his teachers, stockholders, father, or voters.

When Bush leaves office in January 2009, he will be the first president in American history to leave behind not just one, but two, un-winnable wars. The next president will likely inherit a nation more divided at home than any time since the Civil War and more despised abroad than at any time in our history. And he (or she) will be asked to address a host of crises, but will have to do so with a bankrupt treasury, a legacy of political scandal and abuses of power, and record deficits and debts.

It might be too late to address the failures of Bush's character, but it is not too late to hold him accountable or to mitigate mistakes he might make before leaving office. It is time for a national conversation about Bush's fitness for office. Irrespective of your political views, let us all be more discerning and demanding about the character of our candidates in 2008. After all, it matters who sits in the Oval Office, and it ultimately comes down to his or her character.