Maybe this makes me a sucker, but I find it perfectly plausible that George W. Bush reads a book every 4-5 days. I doubt that most of them are dense works of public policy (or searing critiques of his Administration), but what we know about the President's personal habits - particularly his attachment to a bourgeois, early-to-bed early-to-rise lifestyle that includes a librarian wife - suggests the kind of guy who reads for a while before bed without fail, and probably reads extensively on plane trips as well. He strikes me as the kind of male reader who makes Harlan Coben novels and Joseph Ellis books into bestsellers - not a omnivorous wonk like Clinton, or a would-be intellectual like Gore, but a reader nonetheless.
« Boots on the Ground | Main | The Political-Theological Problem; Or, "A Whiff of Nativism" » All The President's Books16 Aug 2007 11:36 am Comments (30)
I'm tired of jerks facilely assuming that you can divine a person's essence from his press coverage, particularly when that person is a conservative politician. I don't think Bush is the ideal candidate for an endowed chair or head of a PR firm, and I fault him for slowness in acknowledging that the Rumsfeld/Casey strategy was failing in Iraq and some poor personnel decisions (inter alia), but most of the unscripted glimpses that we get suggest a guy born to wealth and privilege who had trouble emerging from his dad's shadow but who since entering public service has tried to do right by the nation that's been so good to his family. Defeating the politics of personal destruction begins with granting that someone you disagree with on important issues may yet be "a well-rounded, decent human being." 
November 1999: However, "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" was published in 1969, the same year Bush is not a reader. Period.
He strikes me as the kind of male reader who makes Harlan Coben novels and Joseph Ellis books into bestsellers - not a omnivorous wonk like Clinton, or a would-be intellectual like Gore, but a reader nonetheless. Strange opposition, Harlan Coben and Bill Clinton. To think that I learned about this by reading your very own Atlantic Monthly!
A very quick rule of thumb--"well-rounded, decent human beings" do not condone waterboarding.
People don't realise just how much free time the president gets. With the presidency, almost everything is delegated unless specifically overriden. The official compulsory duties of president (briefings, meetings, receptions, etc...) only take a couple of hours per day -- everything else is at the president's discretion. Obviously, a lot of that discretionary time is spent fundraising, meeting with congressional leaders, publicising an agenda, and so on... but, the president is always the last person to enter a room, doesn't ever have to wait in line for anything, spends a lot of time on Air Force One, etc. There's a reason it's possible to spend weeks at Crawford, Kennebunkport and Camp David, and yet have the executive branch function no differently. If you don't watch TV much, it leaves an extraordinary amount of time for books.
...and, given how he doesn't drink or like to go out much, it's highly conceivable that he gets a lot of reading done.
Interesting, you say Bush is the kind of guy who reads Harlan Coben novels [unlike policy wonk Clinton] but the link you provide specifically notes that Clinton is a reader of Coben. I suspect that Bush is better read than either Clinton or Gore, and certainly more so than Kerry.
The following is a sampling of the books that Bush has read this year. Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar by Edvard Radzinsky American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin (a biography of Robert Oppenheimer) Clemente: The Passion and Grace of Baseball's Last Hero by David Maraniss ( Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power by Richard Carwardine Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural by Ronald C. White Jr. Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900 by Andrew Roberts. Nine Parts of Desire: The Hidden World of Islamic Women by Geraldine Brooks Polio: An American Story by David Oshinsky The Big Bam: The Life and Times of Babe Ruth by Leigh Montville The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History by John M. Barry Salt: A World History by Mark Kurlansky The Stranger by Albert Camus Not bad for a working president whom the left regards as illiterate.
Jeff Peterson writes: "Defeating the politics of personal destruction begins with granting that someone you disagree with on important issues may yet be "a well-rounded, decent human being."" It does if he is. Bush is not. And I certainly don't need a lecture from a supporter of this particularly poisonous administration on "defeating the politics of personal destruction." That's like OJ Simpson giving marriage advice. The "unscripted Bush" calls a reporter a "major league asshole" and gives the finger to a camera and likes to fart in meetings. I'm wicked impressed with his personal growth, dude.
Peter Leavitt concludes: "Not bad for a working president whom the left regards as illiterate." In North Korea official propaganda says that Kim Jong-il routinely gets a few holes-in-one in every round of golf that he plays. True Believers swallow every last drop of "information" about their Great Leaders.
i thought clinton's wonkiness was a lot marketing?
A 2002 column by Arianna Huffington says: Frank Bruni's "Ambling into History," a book about George W. Bush that strolls into bookstores next week, offers a startling revelation: W is "a pretty steady consumer of books." Bruni, who had once derided Bush in print as a non-reader, discovered while following him on the campaign trail that he, in fact, reads diligently, and not just easily digestible books, but thick ones on serious subjects: "Titan," a 774-page biography of John D. Rockefeller; "Lenin's Tomb," about Russia; "A Great Wall," about China; "Balkan Ghost," about the Balkans.
Peter Leavitt posts a list of books that Bush has "read" this year.
DS: Actually, the question was vaguely worded and asked for "best childhood books," so Bush may have interpreted the question to include books he read to his children as an adult, or good children's books in general, as well as books he actually read as a child. At least one other Governor in the survey, Democrat Gary Locke of Washington, made a similar error.
In the good old, pre-9/11, pre-Iraq War days of 2000, the ferociously pro-Gore Daily Howler provided a good analysis of the Hungry Little Caterpillar controversy. http://www.dailyhowler.com/h101100_1.shtml
Bush the avid reader is unmitigated bs, right up there with Reagan the alert master of facts and Nixon the sober gentleman. Damn you guys can be gullible when you want to be.
Northern Observer writes: "Bush the avid reader is unmitigated bs, right up there with Reagan the alert master of facts and Nixon the sober gentleman." I especially liked the gushing praise that followed the publication of Reagan's diaries. The overall tone and literacy level were reminiscent of children's letters to Santa, but the cons treated them like perfect intellectual pearls. I can't wait for the Dumbya Diaries. Here's an excerpt: "Got to wear a flight suit and land on a carrier today. The guys and gals sure did cheer real loud! L said I looked cute as a button. LOL! That sign Karl had some of the boys hang sure was a dang good idea. (I hope Jesus doesn't mind that I said dang.)"
Did he ever finish 'My Pet Goat'? I know he stuck around and spent some extra time on it, even after Andy Card interrupted him. And, of course, we know he didn't read 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' But that wasn't technically a book, I guess.
Bush the avid reader is unmitigated bs, right up there with Reagan the alert master of facts and Nixon the sober gentleman. Damn you guys can be gullible when you want to be.
************************************************* Ah, yes the old amiable dunce routine: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZkMjI1MjJmMmVlNjYyZDU0MzhkZmVhMjAxOGI0NmU=&w=MA== On May 15, 1967, there was a fascinating debate between California’s new Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, and New York’s new Democratic senator, Robert F. Kennedy. The subject: the Vietnam War. The debate was titled “The Image of America and the Youth of the World,” and was billed by CBS as a “Town Meeting of the World.” It was broadcast from 10:00-11:00 P.M. EDT by CBS TV Network and CBS Radio Network. It was produced by later 60 Minutes brainchild Don Hewitt and hosted by CBS News correspondent Charles Collingwood. The debate was watched by a huge audience: 15 million Americans. There was total agreement, including among media sources who revered Bobby Kennedy, from the San Francisco Chronicle to Newsweek, that Reagan overwhelmingly won the debate. “To those unfamiliar with Reagan’s big-league savvy,” reported Newsweek, “the ease with which he fielded questions about Vietnam may have come as a revelation.” Newsweek judged that “political rookie Reagan … left old campaigner Kennedy blinking when the session ended.” Not having a crystal ball into the tragic year ahead for Kennedy, Newsweek pondered whether the debate might be a “dry run” for a future set of “Great Debates” between these two promising presidential aspirants. The late historian David Halberstam acknowledged that “the general consensus” was that “Reagan … destroyed him.” Lou Cannon, in a 1969 book on Reagan and California assemblyman Jesse Unruh, agreed that “Reagan clearly bested Kennedy.” Another of Reagan’s first biographers, Joseph Lewis, recorded that the “tanned and relaxed” Reagan “talked easily and precisely without a hint of uncertainty or hostility,” and “deflated” the “anguished” Kennedy, who “gulped in restrained agony” when answering questions. Kennedy, said Lewis, “looked as if he had stumbled into a minefield.” Kennedy himself conceded defeat to Reagan, telling his aides after the debate to never again put him on the same stage with “that son-of-a-bitch.” Kennedy was heard to ask immediately after the debate, “Who the f—- got me into this?” Frank Mankiewitz was that aide, as Kennedy was quick to remind him a few weeks later: “You’re the guy who got me into that Reagan thing.”
I'm sure Reagan was a bright enough guy in 1967. Twenty years makes a big difference in people of a, uh, certain age. From his diaries: "A meeting with Clarence Thomas my man on the Equal Opp. board. I've nominated him for another term. He's done a h--l of a good job. The Lynch gang on the hill is after him. Then received 9 Ambas's. The 9th was Dobrynin of the Soviet U. He brought a letter from Gorbachev. We had quite a conversation I'm not going to form a quick opinion but he sure is different from the old timers I've met. Nancy is in Calif. This place feels empty." Ooh... the "Lynch gang" is after "my man" Clarence. He'd probably get cranky if you tried to take the clicker from him, too.
I'm tired of transparent attempts to make the meathead look like a well-rounded, decent human being.
What do Bush-lovers James Fallows and George Lakoff have to say: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200407/fallows This spring I watched dozens of hours' worth of old videos of John Kerry and George W. Bush in action. But it was the hour in which Bush faced Ann Richards that I had to watch several times. The Bush on this tape was almost unrecognizable—and not just because he looked different from the figure we are accustomed to in the White House. He was younger, thinner, with much darker hair and a more eager yet less swaggering carriage than he has now. But the real difference was the way he sounded. This Bush was eloquent. He spoke quickly and easily. He rattled off complicated sentences and brought them to the right grammatical conclusions. He mishandled a word or two ("million" when he clearly meant "billion"; "stole" when he meant "sold"), but fewer than most people would in an hour's debate. More striking, he did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones. "To lay out my juvenile-justice plan in a minute and a half is a hard task, but I will try to do so," he said fluidly and with a smile midway through the debate, before beginning to list his principles. Richards's main line of attack—in fact, her only one—was that Bush had done so poorly in a series of businesses that he would be over his head as governor. Each time she tried this, Bush calmly said, "I think this is a diversion away from talking about the issues that face Texas"—which led him right back to the items on his stump speech ("I want to discuss welfare, education. I want to discuss the juvenile-justice system ..."). When talking about schools he said, "I think the mission in education ought to be excellence in literature, math, science, and social science"—an ordinary enough thought, but one delivered with an offhand fluency I do not remember his ever showing at a presidential press conference. When Richards was asked about permitting casino gambling, she replied with a convoluted, minutes-long answer with details about Indian tribal rights. Bush, when asked the same question, had simply said, "I'm against casino gambling"—and when asked, after Richards's discourse, if he wanted to elaborate, said, "Not really." For years I had been told by people who knew Bush from business school or from Texas politics that he was keenly smart—though perhaps in a way that didn't come across in his public statements. Perhaps! The man on the debate platform looked and sounded smart and in control. If you had to guess which of the two candidates had won the debate scholarship to college and was about to win the governorship, you would choose Bush. I bored my friends by forcing them to watch the tape—but I could tell that I had not bored George Lakoff, a linguist from the University of California at Berkeley, who has written often of the importance of metaphor and emotional message in political communications. When I invited him to watch the Bush-Richards tape, Lakoff confirmed that everything about Bush's surface style was different. His choice of words, the pace of his speech, the length and completeness of his sentences, all made him sound like another person. Even his body language was surprising. When he was younger, Bush leaned toward the camera and did not fidget or shift his weight. He arched his eyebrows and positioned his mouth in a way that, according to Lakoff, signifies in all languages an intense, engaged form of speech. Lakoff also emphasized that what had changed in Bush's style was less important than what had remained the same. Bush's ways of appealing to his electoral base, of demonstrating resolve and strength, of deflecting rather than rebutting criticism, had all worked against Ann Richards. These have been constants in his rhetorical presentation of himself over the years, despite the striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills, and they have been consistently and devastatingly effective.
No, I'm sorry. Its not plausible at all. Everything that I have heard about the president indicates that he does not like to read at...all. In the 1 percent doctrine the author goes into detail as to just how important oral briefings are to Bush since he does not read his reports. He also refused to read many of the death row documents when he was gov. of Texas. And 2 books a week for a whole year (not just during an exceptional reading bout at kenebunkport) is a ton. Come on Ross, this isn't plausible.
I've been ill-inclined towards the Bush Derangement Syndrome hypothesis, but the refusal to allow Bush any positive characteristics whatsoever gives the idea more credibility than I would like. All too often the attitude of many posters here seems to beg the question of how did the US elect the only person in the country with no redeeming qualities?
gabriel wonders: "I've been ill-inclined towards the Bush Derangement Syndrome hypothesis, but the refusal to allow Bush any positive characteristics whatsoever gives the idea more credibility than I would like. All too often the attitude of many posters here seems to beg the question of how did the US elect the only person in the country with no redeeming qualities?" His redeeming qualities just have nothing to do with fitness to govern. People elected a "good old boy" who misrepresented what his focus would be to a great extreme. No one knew how bad his personnel choices would be. No one knew how insane his foreign policy would be, since it was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he said it would be during the 2000 debates. I'm sure he's nice to his wife and kids and he's a loyal friend (when his friends do as he wants) and he probably takes good care of his bikes. But he's an historically horrible president, and there's no reason to think he'll improve any before his term ends.
I'd go with "Trust but verify." None of Bush's reading list is verifiable, so there isn't much point in the controversy. It does, however, raise an interesting point about the "soft bigotry of low expectations." We are supposed to be impressed because the President of the United States reads middle brow books.
Bush's reading may be exaggerated. I'm puzzled by the profound hostility of Moe (well, except that Moe seems to have no depth to his nature beyond hostility) to the VERY IDEA. Look, can't Bush be a terrible president, a maker of bad decisions, a shallow thinker, etc., AND possibly a more voracious reader of mostly middlebrow history and baseball books than you might expect? I don't understand what damage it does the left, or anyone else, to grant that Bush might not be an all around idiot. He's still a bad president, which is the relevant point, no? It's not as if admitting Bush may well read an above-average amount of non-trash suddenly ends liberal dominance in the field of "people who read moderately." At random I wager that Scalia is better read than Moe and Larry, if not Jesus.
Carabass writes: "At random I wager that Scalia is better read than Moe and Larry, if not Jesus." I have an Ivy League English degree, chuckles, and a law degree on top of that, so "at random" I'll wager you're wrong. But then wingnuts like you often think you can read minds online. The public Bush shows no sign of being well-read. No references, no turns of phrase, no casual literary references, nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong. I can't think of a single recorded instance that makes him seem more well-read than the average canteen truck operator. And no, I don't count the biblical references. You probably do.
AH! I'd say you have a point, Moe -- but you yourself suggest otherwise. You have any Ivy League English degree AND a law degree (gee, glad you're not a snob or anything) but nobody reading your comments would ever imagine you've read anything beyond a few posts at Kos or something, and perhaps a badly written anti-religion tract or two. Anyway, having any Ivy League English degree isn't really a guarantee of being well read, unless it's a graduate degree. I know a former grad student or two of Bloom: they're genuinely well-read; others vary, depending on if they read things outside their (Ivy League, no less!) classes. But nobody's really suggesting Bush is _well read_. They're suggesting he takes in a bunch of baseball and middlebrow history. I don't think that would produce much of the effect you're looking for, myself.
But then wingnuts like you often think you can read minds online. In case you missed it, the reason I think I can "read your mind" is that, unlike many people who comment here, you sound like an idiot. There are good minds who are wrong about lots of things who hang out here. You just rant a lot and through around phrases like "wingnut" in an effort to sound, as far as I can tell, as witless and unoriginal and incapable of making your own argument as possible. But -- if your aim is to prove an egalitarian point -- that someone with "an Ivy League English degree, chuckles, and a law degree on top of that" can be a complete bonehead -- then you've made a fine liberal case. But if you'll consult your history, modern conservatism already has an element of anti-elitism and distrust of institutions like the Ivy League. You really don't have to go so far to prove that a man with a GED can be better than a feller with multiple sheepskins protruding from his orifices.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I wonder how many Shakespeares he's waded through this year... and if he's gotten to Macbeth yet.
I'm tired of transparent attempts to make the meathead look like a well-rounded, decent human being.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 16, 2007 12:06 PM