Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Does the "C" in CEO President stand for Clueless?
George W. Bush and his sycophantic supporters have long maintained that he is the first CEO President (as if de facto that's a good thing). But as any reading of the Business pages in the past two or three years would indicate, there are in fact a lot of very wealthy, very well connected, and very powerful CEOs who are in fact very bad leaders.
It would seem that W. stands amongst their ranks. As the news out of Iraq gets worse and worse he increasingly seems even more clueless and more out of touch than he did previously. As Kevin Drum pointed out of even conservatives are dismayed at his handling of unfolding events. Bob Kagan, neocon extraordinnaire had this to say:
"Bush himself is the great mystery in this mounting debacle. His commitment to stay the course in Iraq seems utterly genuine. Yet he continues to tolerate policymakers, military advisers and a dysfunctional policymaking apparatus that are making the achievement of his goals less and less likely. He does not seem to demand better answers, or any answers, from those who serve him. It's not even clear that he understands how bad the situation in Iraq is or how close he is to losing public support for the war, a support that once lost may be impossible to regain."
Even George Will (conservative shill with the mostest) is challenging the "All Is Well" line coming from TeamBush. He noted:
"Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice."
And therein lies the rub. Bush has consistently spoken 'On-message' about Iraq (and the economy and everything else) without ever acknowledging the shifting circumstances on the ground. It would seem that to make any public reassessment would undermine Karl Rove's well-polled notion that Bush should above all appear steadfast.
Which brings us back to Drum's original piece (which is short and really worth a read). The crux of it is this:
"(T)he world is full to bursting with CEOs who have goals they would dearly love to attain but who lack either the skill or the fortitude to make them happen. They assign tasks to subordinates without making sure the subordinates are capable of doing them but then consider the job done anyway because they've "delegated" it. They insist they want a realistic plan, but they're unwilling to do the hard work of creating one. . . George Bush is, fundamentally, a mediocre CEO, the kind of insulated leader who's convinced that his instincts are all he needs. Unfortunately, like many failed CEOs before him, he's about to learn that being sure you're right isn't the same thing as actually being right."
One obvious example of his delegation-gets-the-job-done mania--when asked about the report on Iraqi prisoner abuse issued in February that Joint Chief Chairman Myers had admitted not reading, Bush said, "Well, if Myers didn't know about it, I didn't know about it. In other words, he's part of the chain -- actually, he's not in the chain of command, but he's a high ranking official. We'll find out."
Here is a three-month old report identiying the kind of PR bombshell that could be the straw that broke the Iraqi camel's patience about our presence and purpose in Iraq (Bush's self-proclaimed legacy achievement) and he doesn't even know about it. The man is just unbelievably uncurious. Say what you will about Clinton, but the guy was smart. He read everything coming out of the executive branch (often working until very late at night) and called authors of papers and reports and grilled them about specific details.
Like he promised his supporters in 2000, he has indeed proven to be the anti-Clinton, at least in that regard.
George W. Bush and his sycophantic supporters have long maintained that he is the first CEO President (as if de facto that's a good thing). But as any reading of the Business pages in the past two or three years would indicate, there are in fact a lot of very wealthy, very well connected, and very powerful CEOs who are in fact very bad leaders.
It would seem that W. stands amongst their ranks. As the news out of Iraq gets worse and worse he increasingly seems even more clueless and more out of touch than he did previously. As Kevin Drum pointed out of even conservatives are dismayed at his handling of unfolding events. Bob Kagan, neocon extraordinnaire had this to say:
"Bush himself is the great mystery in this mounting debacle. His commitment to stay the course in Iraq seems utterly genuine. Yet he continues to tolerate policymakers, military advisers and a dysfunctional policymaking apparatus that are making the achievement of his goals less and less likely. He does not seem to demand better answers, or any answers, from those who serve him. It's not even clear that he understands how bad the situation in Iraq is or how close he is to losing public support for the war, a support that once lost may be impossible to regain."
Even George Will (conservative shill with the mostest) is challenging the "All Is Well" line coming from TeamBush. He noted:
"Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice."
And therein lies the rub. Bush has consistently spoken 'On-message' about Iraq (and the economy and everything else) without ever acknowledging the shifting circumstances on the ground. It would seem that to make any public reassessment would undermine Karl Rove's well-polled notion that Bush should above all appear steadfast.
Which brings us back to Drum's original piece (which is short and really worth a read). The crux of it is this:
"(T)he world is full to bursting with CEOs who have goals they would dearly love to attain but who lack either the skill or the fortitude to make them happen. They assign tasks to subordinates without making sure the subordinates are capable of doing them but then consider the job done anyway because they've "delegated" it. They insist they want a realistic plan, but they're unwilling to do the hard work of creating one. . . George Bush is, fundamentally, a mediocre CEO, the kind of insulated leader who's convinced that his instincts are all he needs. Unfortunately, like many failed CEOs before him, he's about to learn that being sure you're right isn't the same thing as actually being right."
One obvious example of his delegation-gets-the-job-done mania--when asked about the report on Iraqi prisoner abuse issued in February that Joint Chief Chairman Myers had admitted not reading, Bush said, "Well, if Myers didn't know about it, I didn't know about it. In other words, he's part of the chain -- actually, he's not in the chain of command, but he's a high ranking official. We'll find out."
Here is a three-month old report identiying the kind of PR bombshell that could be the straw that broke the Iraqi camel's patience about our presence and purpose in Iraq (Bush's self-proclaimed legacy achievement) and he doesn't even know about it. The man is just unbelievably uncurious. Say what you will about Clinton, but the guy was smart. He read everything coming out of the executive branch (often working until very late at night) and called authors of papers and reports and grilled them about specific details.
Like he promised his supporters in 2000, he has indeed proven to be the anti-Clinton, at least in that regard.
Comments:
Post a Comment
