December 6, 2006

The Family Dynamics of Bush Policy

 

For psychologists and political junkies alike, the relationship between George W. and his father provides interesting grist for the mill.

 

The current President Bush was asked at the outset of our Iraq invasion if he had consulted with his father before deciding to launch the attack. After all, the former President Bush had organized a successful military campaign against the same adversary, including a decision not to invade Baghdad. He clearly had some reasons for that decision, even if some neocons still had lingering regrets about “that war that could have been”.

 

It certainly seemed prudent, if not mandatory, to explore that decision and ex-post reflections. What a great opportunity - to gain perspective on this grave matter from a former president at this level of intimacy and trust. It would seem this was truly a G-d given opportunity, for the inexperienced president and for our country.

 

The current president responded, “I consult with a Higher Father.” Since then many have pondered the nature of the father-son relationship that spawned that answer. He might have said something about the privacy of his family communications. But instead he used the opportunity to publicly separate himself from his progenitor.

 

One view has Oedipus vying to outdo his competition by completing a job left undone by the caution of the previous generation. Some have the President finding an alternative father figure in the Vice President, and a new uncle in the Secretary of Defense, one from a distant wing of the family at that. That Saddam, the target of this policy, attempted to kill the father, gives this version an additional twist.

 

W included some former Bush Senior people in his initial entourage, though marginalizing those most identified with previous major decisions regarding Iraq, most visibly Secretary of State and well-respected former Joint Chiefs Chairman, Colin Powell. There was clearly a new generation in charge.

 

And what now, that the direction of the new family order seems to be going down in flames? Bush the Younger gathers around him additional close advisors of the former regime, still saying publicly that he does not typically consult with his father on policy issues, most especially on Iraq. Robert Gates is perhaps the most pronounced example, as the replacement for the evil uncle. Family confidant Jim Baker is another. It is still not clear how respectfully his views will be welcomed. And it may never be publicly known if George Senior had something to contribute.

 

Bush Senior has taken pains not to say anything that could be construed as criticism of his son, though sometimes demonstrating an almost-perceptible wince or grimace when the topic of Iraq is mentioned. What is a father to do when his adult-age wayward young son commits acts that are likely to harm himself and others? This is always a difficult dilemma, given the nature of rebellious adolescents of any age.

 

How can a father have his son benefit from the father’s experience and wisdom, while still respecting his son’s independence and need to gain confidence in his own sense of the world? This is a common problem for fathers, but more complex when the son is president. Having a close advisor like Brent Scowcroft be a mouthpiece might be one strategy. He has been extremely critical for some time. It is hard to imagine that someone so close to the Bushes would offer such poignant criticism without George Senior’s blessing.

 

What is of interest to the American public is not the Bush family dynamics themselves, but the impact of those dynamics on important policy matters. Citizens want to know they are being crafted in the most rational way possible. The ideological distortions of current policy-making process already are worrisome to many people. To have unfinished family business also be a major factor is quite alarming. The results suggest that something is amiss.

 

Recently during a question and answer session following a speech, the former President Bush was asked a critical question about his presidential son. He became teary-eyed with his answer, which said nothing about the specifics of the question, but referred to the remarks in his speech about the importance of family in his life. He told the questioner that he (the questioner) must have a lot of courage to raise that kind of question about his son after hearing about the importance of family to him. I wonder if at least some of the tears might be born of grave disappointment.

 

To offer feedback on this column, click here.