I know that he is gone–I “waved” goodbye to his helicopter when it left the Capitol grounds. But, there remains a couple of items to consider about our most recent and now ex President Bush. First, there is the issue of whether it is better to forget and move on versus investigate and find the truth even if it takes us into rounds of prosecutions. Second, there is the question of how did it happen and why? I think that there is some decent groundswell in terms of a popular notion on the first issue that: “President Obama should look forward and deal with the crisis at hand and not be a driving force towards any investigation, Truth Commission or prosecutions. That said, it must fall to either the Justice Department or Congress (or both) to deal with the past because simply ignoring the rampant unconstitutional acts, the criminality and, possibly, those which include crimes against humanity will not serve our nation or Constitution.” To really engage on that topic, I recommend going to the Congressional Record for 1/21/09 and review the brilliant speech given by Sheldon Whitehouse (Senator, D, RI) that day which discusses how it would be a further blight on our Constitution and our Congresses duties NOT to proceed with a full investigation. John Conyers (House, D, MI) has concluded the same and is using him position as Chair of the Judiciary Committee in the House to further investigate the crimes of George W. Bush and his regime. Is the conventional wisdom on this right? Should we simply move on and right the past or is it better to understand it? I vote no to dwelling on the past but yes, most definitely, for Congress to set up an investigation similar to the Iraq Study Group to investigate broadly and for the Justice Department to continue its investigations on a more narrow basis, e.g. on warrantless wiretapping, Gonzales and his corruption at Justice etc. Simply put, I think we hurt ourselves as a nation to focus on this and get caught up in another 24 hour news cycle like “Monica-gate” on this but that our Constitution cannot allow itself to be sullied the way it was without addressing it in some key areas. Maybe that is why ultimately there should be limited prosecution (which would drive the 24 hour news cycle and cause the future to fall to the past which would be a bad thing) but definitely some significant truth telling–especially as it relates to avoiding this in the future.

But, I have been somewhat fascinated about the second issue. How did we get here and how did it become clear to the American people that our past Presidency was a corrupt, deviation from the American norm. The corruption began on day one of the Bush administration yet it wasn’t until 2005 that it became apparent. How is this so?

I think that to understand the issue, a bit of psycho analysis of George W. Bush is necessary (and the below is my “fable” about the Bush two terms–it is not fact but rather surmise on my part as a way to explain the competent failure of the first term and the incompetent failure of the second–again, I am not stating fact but surmised opinion–am I right? Who knows but someone needs to try to sort out this mess and I suggest here is a maybe story-line). In that regard, and I am not a trained speaker in psycho-analytic terminology such that I will be speaking in non-technical terms, I think George Bush is a spoiled adolescent who has never really grown up and feels that he has a significant chip on his shoulder and a lot to prove in terms of his manhood and his intelligence. Bush was pushed onto the Republican ticket (made the frontrunner and the recipient of mass high end donations) because he was attractive to the electorate. He appeared to be a “good guy” who was relatively moderate on social issues (albeit moderately conservative) and fiscally conservative on taxes and tax policy. He was attractive to the wealthy because he was a scion of an elite family but appealing to the masses because you didn’t immediately read rich guy or elitist off of him (a scam that was as fake as the day is long but paid great dividends to the GOP). I think that the general consensus (never mine I might add) was that he was going to be a steady, moderately conservative, focused on the US and not internationalism like his Dad, guy who as President would show great competence and not do anything much and certainly nothing radical. That was the premise of his campaign against (their suggestion) the “very radical Al Gore” who, unlike Clinton, was someone who was an evangelical of environmentalism and world intervention but was “Clintonian in his slippery-ness” (the “lying” campaign against him that grew to louder than the whisper campaign it was meant to be) but not in his folksiness.

The truth, of course, was far from the above. Gore was the competent one who would have moved the country forward without a major lurch to the left and one who had accomplished much but wasn’t a good spokesman for himself. And Bush was, actually, a cypher. He wasn’t a “compassionate conservative” or a “non-interventionist” or a “supply sider” or anything at all. In fact, I would argue, he stood for nothing other than getting ahead. He was a cardboard cut-out who said what it took to get elected and then took office with nary a position or any strong beliefs in political orthodoxy. He was a rich guy who liked rich guys like him and wanted to keep America good for “his base.” Tax policy was easy for him. Less is more. No deep thought just bumper sticker politics. So he effectuated a tax cut and went on vacation.

And the election and vacation of George W. Bush was really a Republican “conspiracy” to elect a cardboard cut-out President and let the country be lead from the shadows. Some have articulated the guess that Cheney, all along, was going to be Bush’s VP because the true powers of the GOP (the wealthy and corporatists arm) had determined that Bush was a wonderfully electable guy but hardly someone they would trust to competently guide anything. Thus, they backed Bush with a condition that he would take on some “of them” including Cheney (the ultimate Halliburton them) as VP. Cheney would guide government in the way that they wanted (favoring wealth, intervening internationally not where it might be needed–e.g. North Korea–but where economic interests lay–like in “oil-dom,” and stopping environmentalism and regulationism that would ruin their dreams of a prosperous America–for the prosperous). Cheney had proven the most competent of shadow leaders through his many years in government so the reigns of power were given to him as the true leader (but one who was still governed by the “power brokers”). But, Cheney had a flaw that they did not fully realize. He was obsessed with Executive power. Anyone who studied his memos, diaries etc. from Ford, Bush One Administrations or his voting record in Congress (to limit Congressional power and enhance that of the Presidency–not the President himself I would add), should have seen this near compulsion by Cheney on this issue which ultimately may have been part of his downfall (not in terms of the electorate but rather in terms of his “power base” that put him in the position, i.e. he went off track from their interests in pursuing his interest in power).

One could argue that the entire first term of W. Bush was really Cheney’s. Cheney had the power from the outset. Bush got his tax cut (supported by the Cheney power base) and truly went on vacation. In fact, like during Katrina, he was asleep at the wheel in a typical non-caring way until the WTC fell. And, after that horror WHICH OCCURRED ON HIS WATCH, he needed an issue to rally the electorate. He again dusted off his “common man” suit and added “tough guy” (which met his need to prove his manhood) as the adjectives which would define him. But, on policy and how it was effectuated, that was Cheney. It was Cheney who knew a Middle East Oil war was needed (beating the Taliban in Afghanistan doesn’t help the monied elite so he quickly got government and the media to turn away from that very necessary international action) and he knew he could get Bush to go along if it involved beating up Saddam since that would make George tougher than his Dad. So Cheney and the powerbrokers played to Bush’s ego and the Iraq War became real. The Military-Industrial Complex (involving the oil interests and many other power centers) revved up into gear which, in turn, saved the economy from failing due to Bush’s tax cuts by creating a false rationale for governmental involvement in the economy–a false boom due to war.

It was Cheney’s competence that kept Bush’s favorable ratings propped up during the first term. But, it was Cheney’s obsession with enhancing Presidential power that caused some to sense he was off track and some of the power structure began to doubt that he could control things through the end of the war (an end they had determined could not happen until late in the Bush second term if not later). And, it was this obsession that, I think, caused Cheney’s number one rival for power to enter stage right–Karl Rove. Rove was and is a bright man on politics. He knows what the electorate wants to see and hear. But, he also got caught up in some power politics that, initially he understood, but later seem to have gone above his mental paygrade. But, Rove was a loyalist to W and someone who wanted to remake the politics of this country into a rightward leaning pro GOP majority. In many ways, Rove seemed to understand that Cheney was a drag on the electability of Bush and the goal of a majority GOP. Governing in the shadows may have been effective (for the goals of the power elite) but much of that effectiveness was not something that could be well understood by the voters. There needed to be a change (not wholesale) but one in which politics played a wider hand in decision-making. Cheney disregarded politics (he seemingly didn’t even like to shake hands) and liked shadow power. A clash occurred likely during the 2004 election between “competent” versus “idealist.”

Now again, I am not suggesting that the Cheney wing was competent for “good” or for America’s needs but rather the voter never got the sense of gross incompetence during the first term (except in Iraq with the Rumsfeld “stuff happens” regarding looting, Abu Gharaib etc.). Rumsfeld’s ego may also have played a huge role in the dissembling of the Cheney power which lead to a vacuum that Rove capitalized on and W’s psyche grabbed ahold of. The gross incompetence of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice team was well-understood internationally (easy for those who were against the war itself) and in some political circles but those who understood electoral politics the mess ups were not of the kind to move voters. Sadly, American voters will not vote on Abu Gharaib’s evil because it doesn’t have a direct path to their lives as much as sleeping during a hurricane shows the emperor’s new clothes especially as they consider that he is the same guy at watch against another attack on America.

So, the first Bush term was marked with silent competency as to managing government and growing the goals of the shadow elite. There were marked screw-ups but mostly those were in Iraq and frankly they added to the length of the war which also was in the interests of the “military-industrial complex” (which in our lives has become less military and more industrial). But, W didn’t like the mess ups and Cheney began to govern with the albatross of Rumsfeld around his collar. W didn’t like being blamed for military indecision and error (it didn’t match his mindset of proving manhood). Rove, in turn, didn’t like the risk that Cheney’s actions and moves on executive power might derail Bush’s second term electoral prospects and he had to realize that the voters were starting to gain a picture of Cheney that was not a good one. And Cheney was also obsessed with the gathering of executive power in a more obvious manner which caused both Rove electoral indigestion and the shadow power elite concern that he was not able to control the Presidency in a way that enhanced their economic needs.

Into the breach stepped George W. Bush. Silent on governing, mostly on vacation but seething that what might occur is that the American people would sense that he was not “in charge.” The emperor wore no clothes. So, in stepped George (with Karl at his side) in an inside power struggle. He wanted to validate his manhood and intellect and put a W stamp on the Presidency beyond the ephemeral or adjectival.

And thus the second term began. W was his own man. He got elected and it was despite the negatives–negatives that all lead ultimately to Cheney (and Rummy). His first move was to name Rove to be a Deputy Advisor to the President for Domestic Policy. Rove was no longer Bush’s private consigliari but now was part of the government. This had to tick Cheney off. But, Cheney had lost prestige and power himself during the election and had made enough enemies even among some of his power elite that his was on the wane. Bush, needing to prove that “he was President” got more actualized and started pushing the pedals of power (or Rove did and Bush petulantly demanded power). Bush, I think, pushed Cheney aside in the high of W’s electoral victory. Bush started believing his own press and since he didn’t read the newspaper that press was coming from Rove and others who figured out that the Pres. needed proof of his own manhood, intellect and power. He didn’t see the whole story just the part’s where he was the star. And, I think, he liked it.

So, the first term was Cheney’s and it was the competence of power which erred in the obsessive need for the accumulation of power and, of course, in the misguided philosophy of government (for greed). But these errors were private-ish ones, i.e. those which mattered to “inside baseball” of politics less than were clear to the electorate. If the first term showed weakness and mistake, it was in areas that outsiders (the world and not the American voter) and Bush skeptics (those who never believed the fantasy-lie of his being “moderate” or “competent”) reveled in but one’s which were easy to paper over in sloganeerism and propaganda (and Rove was good at that). It was a failure and was corrupt to our Constitution if not corrupt on a “more petty” scale. But, it was not an obvious failure. Why? Because Cheney is competent. Competently wrong, Competently corrupt and Competently evil–but competent nonetheless.

Bush’s second term was his own. For the purpose of ego, he pushed Cheney away and could do so because (a) he won his own reelection; (b) he moved Rove ahead in the deck chairs of the titanic game of inside power; (c) the Cheney power elite were spinning because they realized that Cheney’s obsession with Executive Power might ultimately mean they would lose some power and because even they were shocked at the gross incompetence of Rumsfeld’s Iraq policy and the realization that because of Cheney’s competent cover up of same it was papered over during the election but a day of reckoning was at hand. Bush moved into the Presidency in his second term and, with that, his Presidency lost its purpose. It was no longer “purpose driven” towards the power elites’ goals nor towards an idealogy but rather driven to its inner point. Bush’s Presidency began to be about Bush. That meant his infantile need to prove himself was at the core but in conflict with his natural “I don’t care, I am above this” mentality. How could he run the show and still be on vacation? He could, he thought, because he was better than everyone and now he could show it. But, that was a hard sell in that the public began to see that Cheney’s competence was a petty one and Iraq began to dissemble. The Emperor’s naked leg was showing so Bush jumped from hard line position to hard line position veering wildly all the way.

Social Security was his first tack. That was classic Rove and a mistaken feint to bring in the Cheney elite and get them away from Cheney and into the Bush orbit. At the same time, Bush determined that “freedom was on the march” and that his legacy was in democratization (how that work in Iran and Palestine, George?) . Bush veered from wacky international interventionist to false environmentalist (”switch grass”) to economic anti-New Dealer. It was all in ways to play to the audience and demeaned the Presidency in that government began to be about proving oneself–something that the competentist Cheney would never have allowed. It was also about power-aggrandizement, not due to ideology as Cheney promoted in the first term, focused on keeping Bush’s legacy aloft. And it was a poll tested one–thanks to Rove.

But, ultimately, the American people saw more than the naked leg. Starting with Terri Schiavo, the power aggrandizers and social conservative misfits, misplayed their power. The Constitution could not be shredded so as to play to the “life community” which Rove thought would take the GOP into the majority. Freedom cannot be on the march abroad when it is being lost at home. That was the ultimate take from Schiavo as well as the concept that “there is nothing to big or too small for the Bush administration to try to grab power on.” This was an assault on the Constitution in a way that played clearly to the American voters. This wasn’t Abu Gharaib in a far away place, this was government telling a family how to function (and, yes, how they could be for “the defense of marriage” and against a husband in favor of parents is a gross hypocrisy that was not lost on the majority). It was a huge mistake and one that the Bushies didn’t seem to grasp.

And, it was the beginning of the unraveling of the Bush Presidency. Bush, having pushed Cheney away so as to “prove himself,” had lost the competent wing of the Presidency. Bush began his own power grab but this also conflicted with his leisurely driven life. He needed to be “the man” but not work for it. All hat, no cattle (we see this in the stories that he would not allow someone in the Oval Office without a coat on as compared to the less sartorial Obama team–really, he was worried about the clothes one wore in the office rather than the substance of governing–that story alone tells it all). Bush was and is a cypher–a cardboard cut out leader who pushed away those who could govern (though recall what they governed was wrong if not evil) to prove himself. Katrina, Harriet Myers, Alberto Gonzales all followed and one could say directly out of Bush’s trying to be the boss.

The second term failed because it continued to be about wrong (as was the first term) but also because out of ego Bush pushed away competence. This is his legacy and is about the only good I can find in Bush. Thank goodness for his infantile narcissism–without it, the Cheney competence could have continued and we would be celebrating the Presidency of Jeb right about now.

And we do need to investigate–not the incompetence as much as how we did have, for some time, the competence of Constitutional corruption–that’s the real issue we need to know so as to avoid it forever more.