A question of competence: George W. Bush has failed in some basics

National Review, April 2, 2007 by Richard Lowry

The most famous example is Vladimir Putin. Bush professed to have gotten a "sense of his soul" and--against the evidence of the Russian leader's background and of common sense--pronounced him "straightforward and trustworthy." Russia has been sliding into a neo-czarist authoritarianism ever since.

Bush obviously doesn't have any control over who rules Russia. Of more relevance to his own government, Bush had Gen. George Casey to dinner, where he watched how he treated his wife and kids and ascertained that he was a good man. In a meeting with journalists in September 2006, Bush cited this as evidence in Casey's favor, never mind that it was clear by then Casey was losing the Iraq War. Whether you are a good man or not has no relation to your ability to fight and win a war. Indeed, the two might be inversely related.

The good man syndrome is related to Bush's clannishness. It was said of the personnel in the administration of George H. W. Bush that they didn't have agendas, but mortgages. The personnel in the second administration don't have agendas, but loyalties--to George W. Bush, to whom many of them owe everything professionally.

This can be a strength. It enhances cohesiveness. But the administration has also overvalued loyalty, tending to shut out other talented people and giving loyalists jobs for which they might not be suited. The thinking was that the administration would be run in such a top-down manner that young and inexperienced people could be placed in positions farther down the food chain without consequence. But those people still have to make decisions and manage people.

Once inside the charmed Bush circle, people tend to stay there, and rise to the level of their incompetence. It's hard for an outsider to break in. When the administration was considering a secondterm shakeup, almost all the speculation centered on how to move current administration officials from one job to another, and that's mostly what happened.

Press secretary Tony Snow--a late addition--is an exception to the rule. Former press secretary Scott McLellan and attorney general Al Gonzales are illustrations of it. The most flagrant example of the rule would have been Harriet Miers, who was only marginally fit--if that--to be White House counsel, but was almost promoted all the way to the Supreme Court. When the qualifications of his choice were questioned, Bush replied that the critics didn't know Harriet Miers the way he knew her and that she was a "good woman."

For Bush, loyalty runs two ways, an exceptional quality for a politician and one that speaks well of his character. Loyalty isn't just owed to him, he returns it.

The characteristic act of Bush's political leadership in the 2000 nomination contest was to lose New Hampshire by 19 points to John McCain--a debacle--and yet not fire his top political aides. This turned out to be the right decision. Doing otherwise would have denied him the services of the supremely talented Karl Rove. By not panicking and focusing his team on the task ahead in South Carolina, Bush righted his campaign and won the nomination. But this approach isn't the right one in every circumstance and, in the presidency, it has ill served him.