10 Take Aways From the Bush Years
One last article reviewing the outgoing administration:
Bob Woodward has an interesting take away from the past 8 years. Woodward has spilled as much ink as anyone covering the Bush White House — 11 hours of interviews with Bush, hundreds of hours with his key players, four books, totaling 1,727 pages — suggests that this has been the equivalent of a very long case study in how not to engage in presidential decision-making. From the Bush administration’s errors, here are 10 lessons that Obama and his team should take away:
1. Presidents set the tone. Don’t be passive or tolerate virulent divisions.
2. The president must insist that everyone speak out loud in front of the others, even — or especially — when there are vehement disagreements.
3. A president must do the homework to master the fundamental ideas and concepts behind his policies.
4. Presidents need to draw people out and make sure that bad news makes it to the Oval Office.
5. Presidents need to foster a culture of skepticism and doubt.
6. Presidents get contradictory data, and they need a rigorous way to sort it out.
7. Presidents must tell the public the hard truth, even if that means delivering very bad news.
8. Righteous motives are not enough for effective policy.
9. Presidents must insist on strategic thinking.
10. The president should embrace transparency.
The entire article is worth your time — it is both astute and thought provoking . . .
Source:
10 Take Aways From the Bush Years
Bob Woodward
Washington Post, Sunday, January 18, 2009; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011402791.html
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
January 26th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
#10… hey, I thought a lot of people saw right through Bush?
Bah.
#11. Presidents must hope that they are sworn in near the lows of the economic cycle, and leave office near the highs of the economic cycle.
That’s the key.
Well, hindsight is 20-20. And generalities are what they are. I suppose that’s how we govern. See the inauguration speech comparisons between Bush in 2001 and Obama 2009? Lots of the same verbage.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I think the swearing in of Geither rules out number 10.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
“Presidents need to foster a culture of skepticism and doubt.”
This doesn’t fit too well for a president falling back on religious dogma when attempts at rational justification for policy (if any such attempt was ever made in the first place) fails.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Those are blatantly obvious lessons.
I can replace them with one simple, guiding principle:
Your President should be able to fog a mirror.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Transparency , pipe dream, give me a break.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Get over it dude. Bush is gone. Talk about ideological zealotry (which you always want to criticize); you wanna keep beating a horse that is not only dead, but buried.
Let’s start analyzing how badly Obama is going to screw us with his ludicrous Keynesian money drops.
If you thought the bridge to nowhere was bad, just wait to see what squeezing 1T into an economy in 18 months is going to do. It’s going to blow your mind.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Hallelujah! The last Bush rant…now can we please go back to economics…
It is not worth it…I agree with Vic….get a bow and arrow and some Bush targets and vent!
January 26th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I’m putting this into a “whole lotta of noise” category.
All I want right now is a lot of volatility and a market that goes no where for a year. To help make up for last year. To get back my 20% I need to make 40%
Anyway, couldn’t this be said about almost every company and organization. Every company I’ve ever worked for has lacked in at least 7 out of 10 if not 10 out of 10. The one company that came close 7 out of 10 did the 3 right very, very well.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Barry, don’t be so quick to drop the Bush rants. The man and his administration were a complete disaster for the country, as history will bear out. I’ll never forget the great line growled by Triumph the Comic Insult Dog on being introduced to Karl Rove, “the brains behind Bush,” in 2004. Said Triumph: “I expected a much smaller man.” Woof.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
______________________________Behind The Curve
By BoB Woodward
January 26th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Yea, let’s not look back…….IT might be gaining on us.
My own personal -One- takeaway is, and has been, this….
W got re-selected in 2004 and our country’s fate was sealed as a result.
Sure, total Republican rule during W’s 1st 4 years was damaging enough but it was Numbnuts next 4 years, the four on TOP of the four, that constituted the “coup de grace” to the Republic.
btw, If i was a Republican foolish enough to vote for the prick once, let alone twice, I wouldn’t want to look back either.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
For Bush apologists like Vic and Bruce, drawing lessons from the Bush Presidency is “ideological zealotry.” And Bruce like Rush, is praying that the Obama Presidency will be a failure. As if that wasn’t “ideological zealotry.”
January 26th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
What happens if Obama is a success? Will Vic and Bruce question their ideology?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Its an excellent list. May I add number 11?
Don’t wait until the final week in office to realize he may be judged harshly by the media.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Perhaps he could do a 10-list for the Maestro…. at least Bush wasn’t overrated. ;)
January 26th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
@David Merkel
As long as you agree that the biggest problem with the Maestro was his emphasis on deregulation or regulatory disarmament/non-enforcement. As his monetary policy was dead on. (See page numbered 28 of the following):
http://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/policyconf/papers2007/Orphanides_Wieland.pdf
January 26th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Barry,
I love ya man, but I am going to have to jump in the camp with some of the other guys here. As bad as Mr. Bush may or may not have been, he is no longer our president and no longer worth complaining about.
The damage is done, and it is time to move on from hating on George and start talking about what can now be done to fix our current situation.
Also I think some people liked having Dubya around, since he could be a political punching bag for everything going wrong in the world.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:18 am
I agree with Jonathan. Personalities should not be an issue. The key is to understand that it was the supply side polices that led to such a gigantic economic failure in the last eight years.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Not Bush specific:
#11: A President should uphold the Constitution by putting the interests of the American people first.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:59 am
“The key is to understand that it was the supply side polices that led to such a gigantic economic failure in the last eight years.”
I would argue that a complete lack of any kind of regulation, putting absolute loyalty above competence, a completely dysfunctional, justice department and SEC, had a lot more to do with the dire straits that we are in, than the supply side ideology.
It is my belief that this recession will point more towards the incompetence of the previous administration that to any failure in economic philosophy.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Mark — I don’t agree with that analysis. Monetary policy must take into account asset prices, and not just goods and services prices. The Taylor Rule is useful, but its constant application leads to liquidity traps, in my opinion.
The punch bowl needed to be taken away for longer, until bad debts were reconciled. Now we have too many of them to deal with in any reasonable way.
With respect to the tolerance of bad underwriting, and misregulation of the banks, I am 100% on board that ship… but there are more reasons to criticize Greenspan than just these. I’ll post on this, and any constructive criticism you want to bring my way is heartily welcomed at the Aleph Blog.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:10 am
@Blackhalo
I believe that deregulation is one of the four major tenents of the supply side ideology (lower government spending, lower marginal tax rates, deregulation, tight money) and as such the entire philosophy is at least partly responsible for our current economic disaster.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Dave Merkel,
I think sound monetary policy should only take into account output gaps (unemployment) and inflation. Asset bubbles are the responsability (or irresponsability) of regulation. I’ll take a look at your blog, but expect a lot of constructive criticism.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:22 am
Re: #7 — Jimmy Carter told the public the hard truth in 1978. About our need to sacrifice and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. How did that work out for him?
January 27th, 2009 at 7:02 am
For those that don’t like to read about politics on the Big Picture:
A) This is Barry’s Blog, not yours
B) Economics without Politics is like sex without a partner
January 27th, 2009 at 7:41 am
The complexity of this country with its perilous crosscurrents, multiple cultures, religions, social inequities, system of laws geared to enrich lawyers instead of a system of justice, old vs young, men vs women, black vs white, asian, and hispanic, and on and on and on, make a mockery of representative government.
We are witnessing the fact that one man cannot do the job required of the POTUS. No ten men could do it.
This does not excuse Bush or any other president for their actions. They likely know that they cannot possibly ‘ lead a nation’ but can only play to their base if they hope to escape in 4 years or 8, with a modicum of accolades instead of a lifetime of ignominy.
There is no likelihood that the elected and the people of the United States will do the right thing: recognize that it’s not governable but only poorly, if not disastrously as it is turning out, as it stands.
Like a business conglomerate that has found that it’s many different entities cannot coexist and must be spun off, its core shrunk to manageable levels (see any number of large corporate entities that struggle under a single flag including GE, the large banks, etc.) the US needs to divest itself, reform under a regional or state model and recognize that “in order to form a more perfect union” it must forego the notion that 400,000,000 people can live under one form of government. It is plainly obvious that this no longer is a tenable goal that, in the end, the experiment does not work for the benefit of the people and will never work.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:07 am
The point is, boys, that Bush wasn’t a devil, and Obama isn’t a savior…if those of you reading this think building a straw man explains why your life and investments go awry, think again.
Bush and Obama are just average men. Period.
Get over it.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Money-making without values leads to Thain’s $32k commode. The president has a chance to set the tone and direction of the national self-image. The economic life of the country and world does not take place in a vacuum of the “market”. The impact of political ideology on economic affairs is profound, as we see all around us today. It is very relevant to include political issues in discussion of the economic (and ethical) life of the country (and world), and to review the egregious failures of the past, especially when they are impacting us so dramatically as now.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Barry:
Just like you informed those who would listen to the many issues in the Financial Markets doing the same on the political front is welcome. Many will want to give there version of the Bush years but what is important is that we learn from those years.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Woodward’s was a good list but I personally think it erred in taking Bush seriously. This guy is what he always was, not the total idiot that some would have him but nevertheless someone who was totally unequipped to be president of the US. He was essentially an affable front man for a set of ideas that you can agree or disagree with but which he himself would have had difficulty explaining except in the most superficial terms. I’ve come across his type in business many times over the years. He’s usually the son or grandson of the founder of a business and he sits in the conference room surrounded by the heavies who allegedly work for him and who struggle to keep a straight face while he goes through his talking points. The execution of the ideas was to be carried out by a mixture of some very clever (Addington, Cheney) and not so clever (Gonzales, Shlozeman, Brownie) doctrinaires. When the wheels started to come off the bus Bush hadn’t the slightest idea of how to make a sensible and pragmatic choice between conflicting policies because he didn’t have much idea of either real life or govt worked.
Bruce N Tennessee Says:
Bush and Obama are just average men. Period.
Bush is certainly average but whatever your politics it’s surely hard to say Obama is an “average” man. The guy is black, grew up in modest circumstances, got himself to Harvard Law where he made first black president of the review which isn’t a cakewalk, has written a really first class and best selling little book about his experiences, taught constitutional law at UC law school, got himself elected senator and then comes out of nowhere and against all odds gets himself elected president. He’s also someone of such incredible grace and charisma so that he shows signs of joining Kennedy and FDR as one of the most iconographic presidents of the last 100 years. I’ve no idea whether his presidency is going to be a success but you could hardly say this is an “average” guy. I’d be interested in your definition of an “un-average” guy.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:24 am
The lesson that must be learned must be learned by the electorate – not the elected.
On a related note, I love how those responsible for electing this dolt (Bush) now want to practice moral/intellectual relativism (a practice they rail against when others employ it) to paint all Presidents/policies with the same brush. If the statement that they’re all all the same were true, then there’s no point in these folks ever voting again.
Make no mistake: All presidents are not equal. The truth of this statement can be clearly seen in our national history.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Unless I missed something, OBama is not “black”, he is fact borne of a white mother which makes him more white as having been born of black mother would make him ‘more’ black.
The point is, he is bi-racial and many of his supporters think of him that way. I certainly do.
And no matter if he is far, far above average, his presidency cannot overcome the massive problems he has inherited and may in fact have contributed to depending on his voting record. But then no one who ran for POTUS would be able to deal with the length and breadth and depth of insurmountable problems that this administration faces and which only future events will help mitigate. There’s a more than an even chance that government, any government intervention, will only make matters worse, extend their negative effects or both.
Congress deserves most nearly ALL the blame both democrats and republicans for the mess out there now with the possible exception of the war in Iraq.
Wave to @ottovbvs: he nailed it.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Otto:
Well, let’s see….what makes Obama special? Really? He wasn’t even through his first term as a senator. IQ..mid 120′s…same as Bush…Kennedy had grace, but later we find out that is just what we saw, or were meant to see. The man is black, but so what? I mean so what? Jesus was a semite, but so what? He could have been black, or causcasian, or anything, but so what?
Huey Long was incredibly charismatic…people loved him too.
My point still is that building your hopes on, or hating, presidents is mindless. The man has a job to do. Hopefully he will do it well. Hero worship or hating straw men is wasted mental energy.
Perhaps we should sell voodoo dolls of Bush, and nativity scenes of Obama…either exercise would be pointless…the whole thing is about letting go. Barry is much like you, he’s built this strawman of Bush, and my point to all of you is this hatred thing only poisons you…it won’t hurt Bush, and it won’t help Obama…it will just make you even more bitter than you are today…
as I said, let it go…
January 27th, 2009 at 9:54 am
7. Presidents must tell the public the hard truth, even if that means delivering very bad news.”
8. Righteous motives are not enough for effective policy.
Obama is already failing on both counts. He only delivers bad news if it can easily be laid at the feet of his predecessor, but he won’t deliver bad news that isn’t politically expedient or requires widespread pain to resolve.
Americans are totally oblivious to the size of our national debt and the dire status of our underfunded/overdelivering entitlement programs. Neither POTUS candidate made this the focus of their campaign and neither could articulate the consequences of not addressing these issues.
With these problems as a back drop, throwing trillions at banks and economic stimulus is the easy way out. Keynes offered the sweet elixir politicians readily lap up. Swiping Uncle Sam’s worn credit card once again is only going to push our debt obligations to future taxpayers – fortunately for Obama, they can’t vote. This isn’t “strategic thinking” folks. Debt unwinding is painful – flooding the ecomomy with freshly printed greenbacks isn’t.
The MSM also deserves much blame. They missed the impending mortgage crisis because they found stories like global warming, gay marriage, and the Iraq War sexier. What can be less sexy than reporting on overleveraged, under regulated banks? A housing bubble based on liar’s loans and speculators? Massive U.S. debt?
I don’t doubt Obama has “righteous motives”, but his policies of bigger government and massive borrowing will have negative consequences – maybe during his term, probably after.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:55 am
caucasian, he meant…
January 27th, 2009 at 9:59 am
This article was definitely more about what bush did wrong, rather than what President’s need to do. These take aways are Bush specific and Obama trying to apply them all will likely lead to a fitful first year or two of his administration.
As far as average men…Anyone who makes it to through the Presidential campaign grinder is not an average man, and that is likely not a good thing. Common sense, relateable experiences, and a past of accomplishing tangible results over achieving a higher standing have been notably missing in the last few presidents. This one is no different and expecting different results is setting oneself up for disappointment.
Although, in my opinion, there has never been a better time to become president in the past 30 years. tough to not be successful at this point.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I almost wonder if this is a heads up to Obama especially considering the opaqueness of Tarp and Geithner. Playing out a stimulus/rescue plan by the seat of your pants is no way to instill confidence or keep hope alive.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:35 am
If Bush has an I.Q. over 100, then chickens have lips.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I love the smell of Republicans excusing Bush in the morning.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
This is not about hating or bashing the Bush. It’s about analyzing and understanding failures so you can avoid repeating them in the future. One of the biggest problems in this country is the misunderstanding that “putting something [bad] behind you” means ignoring it and quickly forgetting it ever happened. That is not putting it behind you, that is putting it back in front of you.
In this case it is not just about understanding how a president can fail so spectacularly (and almost all his failures can be traced back to his inability to be a good leader and decider). Most of it is very applicable to any kind of large structure needing leadership. It has everything to do with economics and even investment. If you ever see a large company with these same type of problems in its leadership you know its time to sell its stocks (or short the heck out of them).
To anybody who cannot see the difference between Bush and Obama with respect to pre-presidential accomplishments, leadership and character, I just hope that your daily life is not dependent on your ability to evaluate facts or human beings. And those who want to explain the last 8 years by saying that Bush was stupid and/or evil also have some serious problems.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I’m with DeDude. I never, ever want this to happen again.
I am guilty of being complacent with my government and CongressCritters, until I started watching the continual shredding of the Constitution. It was only then that I realized my complacency and lack of participation in the process contributed to the problem.
I trusted Obama enough to vote for him; however, that doesn’t mean I’m taking my eyes off of him or the rest of the crew in D.C., mainly because after Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, I can’t afford to be complacent anymore.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
The whole article has a flawed premise; Bush had the best interests of the USA at heart. Not true. He is a crook and a traitor. He consistently made studied decisions based on the bottom line of his pals even if that caused the country pain in blood or treasure I guess if I wrote four books about a president and had special access to him, I would want to paint him as having good intentions and absolve myself of shilling for sadists and crooks. However, this isn’t going to fly with the public. Bush is finished and so is Woodturd.
Tom K. ,
The only mistake Obama has made is trying to negotiate with republican traitors who should be in prison rather than in congress. But don’t worry, unlike Bush, Obama does learn from his naive mistakes. I hope you start learning as well.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
@flipspiceland,
I’m not sure that Bush has lips. Hmmmm. Now things are beginning to make sense.
January 27th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
AGG,
So, where’s your proof that he’s a crook and a traitor? Your comment probably says more about you than anything about GWB. Yes, I’m laughing at you.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
“I’ve no idea whether his presidency is going to be a success but you could hardly say this is an “average” guy.”
Some men are more average than others. O’ taking down Clinton was quite a feat IMHO beyond his other accomplishments.
I for one have low expectations for a Democratic Prez and Congress as I expect the infighting and backbiting to result in mostly ineffectualism, but I can still hope for the best.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:35 am
Sorry people but if you want to understand how all Presidents, Prime Ministers etc of any political colour operate you need to read Niccolò Machiavelli. People don’t like what he had to say (funny how people never want to hear about the real world) but the reason “The Prince” is still going strong after 500 years is he hit the nail square on the head.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I’ve lost respect for Bob Woodward over his opportunistic coverage of the Bush administration. He certainly seemed to lean toward a positive view of the Admin in his earliest books, when it was fashionable to do so. Woodward seems more concerned about maintaining his reputation and staying close to the consensus so as not to alienate too many readers. He went on a very long time insisting that there was no there there in the Valerie Plame case, long after it was clear to many others that something of importance had occurred.