I am not buying that Bush is as dumb as we might like/fear. Vain, cowardly, arrogant and undergunned in the intellectual department, yes. I do recognize that this can have the same effect as being dumb. Being dumb means - to me - that Bush has no idea where he is going. I think he knows exactly where he is going. That he might not recognize that the destination will not be the same one as he planned on is a sign of his arrogance. A less timid person would acknowledge his errors and make corrections.
I do nto buy that Bush has the intellectual capacity to dream of a fascist state and I say he lacs the meglomania to cast himself as Il Duce. Those who want to cast him in the role of fascist prophet indulge in a bit of laziness themselves. Take a good look at the Gonzales fiasco, epsecially this post from Down With Tyranny! Remember in 2004 Rove trumpted a Republican controlled government for the next generation. I think the truth of Bush and Rove is far more shabby: infiltrate the federal government with cronies who would continue to urn things as Bush and Rove would do and that would mean for the benefit of the friends of Bush and Rove and the Republican Party. When a Republican became President in 2008, these people would function in the same way way as they did under Bush. Therefore, Bush need not worry about having a successor in the Presidency. The executive branch apparatus would function as his successor.
Now, I have no proof of this but only a lot of supposition. I really doubt that Bush or Rove expect a Democrat to be elected next year. What they have done in the area of voter fraud shows, I think, the efforts they made to ensure the outcome that they wanted. What they did not expect is how much competence government needed to function. Surely it needed even less than running a professional baseball team? Measuring competence as how well an official implements the Bush theory of government on the bureaucracy means something different from competence in running a particular agency. I see that as why Bush has supported Gonzales in the face of Gonzales' incompetence.
I suggest a tension lies between Bush's goals and his record that even he cannot escape. Again, from Eugene Robinson's column:
Speaking to the contractors' group Wednesday, the president elaborated: "Either we'll succeed or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve."
Comments for this post
