Tragic Legacy

I just got it from Amazon, and I'm excited to read Glenn Greenwald's A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency.  I've read some excepts here and there, and I really liked what I read (I also enjoy his blog a great deal).  It seems like Greenwald has finally distilled all that I've been thinking about these past few years into succinct, clear terms.  The gist is this: George W. Bush has a filter through which everything is either good or evil. This is a major cause of our current and (probably) future problems.  His Good vs. Evil viewpoint is criminally inappropriate and simplistic for a chief executive to apply to his dealings with domestic and foreign issues.

Gee-Dub is a well-meaning man.  He just isn't shrewd enough to rise above gut reactions to terrorism or threats.  Instead of holding nuanced views on how to deal with terrorism and threats to democracy, he sees himself as a Churchillian savior of Western values in a time of intense crisis.  And the public will inevitably give him that authority when the wound is fresh. It is the mark of a true leader that clear thinking guides action rather than "guts".  He doesn't realize that fighting our enemies has far-reaching results for how the rest of the world views the US, our moral standing, the abandonment of our founding principles, etc.  In a sense, Bush doesn't have the "luxury" of a World War to make our path clear.  We can't bomb indiscriminately.  We don't really know who we're fighting, for the most part.  If we "win", there will be no peace treaty to mark the event.

I hope Mr. Greenwald addresses the other side of the issue: Bush critics who froth at the mouth while expounding on Bush's crimes and arrogance.  These people are guilty of exactly the same sort of sloppy reasoning that they criticize.  While most of these people are thankfully on the fringes, it should be remembered that the dualistic attitude that we condemn Bush for holding can be applied by both sides of the political spectrum.  Bush's actions, while pretty damn terrible, are most likely mistakes and not willful acts of destruction.  If we acknowledge that a well-intentioned leader can be misled down this path, we are more likely to avoid repeating similar errors instead of lazily classifying him as evil or incompetent.

Anyway, I can report back in a few weeks when I get around to reading it.