Biography

Decision Points

Former President George Bush’s Decision Points hasn’t been an easy read for me. Politics isn’t a world where I feel very at home or savvy, and of course this book is an account of a life steeped in politics. I would class it as an apologia, a defense and explanation of the decisions Mr. Bush made at various key points in his life, and while I didn’t always agree with those choices, I come away from the book with a fuller appreciation of the contexts in which they were made, a refreshed sense of the eight years of his presidency “at a glance,” and a liking for the man.

In the first half of the book, three things struck me. One was the sense of privilege, I would even say aristocratic privilege, of Mr. Bush’s life. His is a wealthy family, a world where the capital is seemingly always available, whether for an Ivy League education, an entry into the oil business, or a major league baseball team purchase. “I had pledged that I would spend my first ten years after college experiencing a lot and not getting tied down,” he explains at one point. A kind of freedom was available to him that few people have, and a range of opportunities and connections.

This is not to discount the education and intelligence and possibility-mindedness that Mr. Bush has cultivated as a part of his character, and which have been misrepresented badly by his political opponents and the media. It’s simply to observe that there are “haves” and “have nots” in America, and while many of us fall somewhere in between, the Bush family are unquestionably in the “haves” category. I don’t begrudge them that, but it did make certain aspects of his story hard for me to relate to. And it gave his political story a feeling of inevitability. This story is not “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

Second, Mr. Bush’s decisiveness jumped out at me as I read. This is a character trait I came to really appreciate and respect as I read. Part of the gift of leadership is recognizing that at all times while in office, he was responsible for the course of action the country is taking, and for providing the American people with confidence that those at the top have the situation in hand. There were a good many traumas in the eight years of Mr. Bush’s presidency, and he responded in every case with this double-edged awareness. “Instead of covering every issue,” he explains at the end,

I’ve tried to give the reader a sense of the most consequential decisions that reached my desk. As I hope I’ve made clear, I believe I got some of those decisions right, and I got some wrong. But on every one, I did what I believed was in the best interests of our country.

The year I was writing my dissertation, I had a tenure-track teaching job at a small liberal arts college. They hired me as their Renaissance person, even though my exam areas had been 18th and 19th century British lit and American lit from colonial times through the present. They did this because they felt I was a person who fit in with the vision and values of the college; they were looking for a certain kind of person as well as a body of expertise, and anyone at that level had an ability to “work up” a subject area.

I think we treat the presidency the same way. We talk a lot about political issues, but we vote for a person, someone who inspires our confidence. After reading this, I feel more appreciative of these qualities of decisiveness and compassion that made Mr. Bush a strong leader through a time of turmoil. I am very glad he was at the helm during 9/11 and during the economic meltdown, even though I am still not sure I agree with all of his decisions.

Speaking of 9/11 brings me to the third striking aspect of the first half of the book: reliving it. As I worked through Mr. Bush’s blow by blow account of those early days, the sights and sounds and feelings, the frustrations of being stuck on Air Force One when he wanted to be a strong and comforting presence on the ground, the anger, and the grief, I felt it all over again. After that great wound to our country, we kept putting one foot in front of the other and may feel like we’ve left it behind us. But reading about the event confirmed for me just how deep the wound was.

I put the book down for awhile at the halfway point. There is a good bit of detailed policy review and I was not equally interested in all of it. In the past week as I’ve picked it back up and finished it, the subject that has interested me most is Mr. Bush’s view of freedom — the “freedom agenda” he cites as the fourth tenet of the “Bush Doctrine.” It’s impossible not to characterize his view of democracy as triumphalistic. He seems to interpret the world in terms of a march toward universal freedom and democracy. (This is quite a change from what G.K. Chesterton suggested in my recent reading.)  I am not sure I agree, or accept that as a justification of some kinds of foreign policy decisions. I would like to see freedom embraced in those parts of the world where it is stifled by oppressive regimes, but I am not convinced that it can be imposed from without, or that if oppressive regimes are toppled, democratic ones will naturally grow in their place.

Mr. Bush repeats several times that “history shows” that when people taste freedom, they want more, and eventually bring it about. But when I consider history (at an admittedly elementary level), I see the lust for power rising again and again. History looks to me more like a symphony of tyrants and empire-builders clashing than march toward democracy. (I think of this when I see what’s happening in the Middle East right now, in fact. Our spokespeople are calling it a “wave of democracy sweeping the region.” That remains to be seen, I think.)

Even in America, I am increasingly doubtful about our “freedom.” The political institutions that structure our government are democratic, but they are also incredibly dysfunctional and corrupt. They are like a well-oiled engine that over time has accumulated enough gunk (for lack of a more sophisticated term) to bring it to a halt altogether. But more importantly, I begin to wonder whether political institutions are really where the power is anymore. Does government really determine the course of events? I can think of two forces, the market and technology, that seem to have much more pervasiveness and momentum when it comes to shaping our lives. We surrender much of our humanness to these impersonal forces, and they (and consequently the human entities behind them) wield tremendous power. I am a Christian who believes human beings have souls and cannot be entirely controlled by external forces. But institutions can. More specifically, institutions can be controlled by the companies that develop and control these particular “forces.” I am not sure where it is all going, but I wonder whether our elected officials are really the ones running the show. The huge economic bailout, which we all paid for, is portrayed in this book as inevitable. Elected officials had to give way even when they were philosophically against it. It’s hard to think of “freedom” as very meaningful in such a context.

Do we really want freedom? I am often struck by how much we want enslavement. We want someone else to make the decisions and carry the load. I found my time in the pages of Decision Points to be a primer in what it means to shoulder the load, and I recommend it as such.

4 Comments

  • Sarah M.

    Talk about timing! Although I read Decision Points in December, I just (FINALLY) got around to posting my review yesterday. As soon as I saw your review this morning I was curious to find what you thought of it. I enjoyed reading a different perspective of the book. Each review I’ve since read has varied in personal perspective, though overall the general opinion has been the same. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

    If you are interested you can read my review here: http://libraryhospital.blogspot.com/2011/03/decision-points-by-george-w-bush.html

  • Mouseprints

    Good review! I have no intention of reading the book, so I appreciate your in-depth look at it.
    I find it interesting that he would put forth those statements about freedom and democracy, and yet he himself enacted many laws that took away our freedoms. And no, I’m not engaging in Bush-bashing; I think like every president he did some things right and some things wrong.
    I think you are right in that I don’t think people really understand what freedom is anymore. That’s what bothered me about the post 9/11 frenzied attitude of people: “I don’t care what you have to do, just keep me safe!” Safety and freedom are not synonymous. And we as a nation seem to prize safety more. It’s going to come back to bite us. It already is.
    Wow! I shouldn’t be thinking this hard so early in the morning! ;) Thanks, Janet!

  • Carrie, Reading to Know

    I read Sarah’s review yesterday (and liked it) and enjoyed yours as well. As Sarah said – all the reviews of it seem to be overall positive and I DO want to read it very much! I lived in TX when he was governor and he made a fantastic governor. I was excited when he became president and, on the whole, feel he did a great job. And he was a strong leader, esp. following 9/11.

    Enjoyed reading your thoughts on this one!

  • bekahcubed

    I guess I’m just adding my “dittos” to the rest. I’m eager to read this book–and definitely appreciate your comments. The idea of society naturally moving towards democracy rubs me not quite right, as well. It seems to me that peoples move towards self-interest–and towards whatever mode of government best serves self-interest. Of course, different circumstances, different levels of education and technology all impact what people believe best serves self-interest. In one day, they might have felt that banding together under the protection of a land-owning lord was in their best interest. In another, they feel that surrendering their own and others rights to a nanny state is in their best interest. But I’d say that while many people like the idea of democracy, very few naturally tend towards it practically.