« We Are All Christianists Now | Main | Is The iPhone Making Us Stupid? »

The President's Unconscious

01 Jul 2008 02:23 pm

My morning session here at Aspen featured David Brooks talking about the subject of his next book, which will focus on the brain, neuroscience, sociology, politics, and the intersection thereof. He cautioned at the beginning that he's only a quarter of the way through the book, and the talk reflected that fact: It was more a diffuse collection of observations, anecdotes and arguments than a tightly-focused narrative. But even in inchoate form, the morning left me with the distinct impression that this book has the potential to catapult Brooks into Thomas Friedman or Malcolm Gladwell territory - except that unlike, say, Blink it'll actually be good as well. (And yes, I'm feeling pretty favorably disposed toward Brooks right now, so take my sentiment with however much salt you'd like.)

I'll try to post some video later (we're hoping to splice together highlights of these panels), but for now I'd just like to pluck out one politically-salient observation he made. Brooks talked a lot about the unconscious, likening the mind to a boy riding an elephant - the boy is your conscious mind, the elephant is everything else, and you need to really understand elephants to know what's going on. This point segued, among many other digressions, into a discussion of how unconscious mental structures affect politicians, and here Brooks brought up President Bush, and remarked that in all of his conversations with the President he'd always been struck by the extent to which Bush seemed (unconsciously, in ways he'd never articulate if pressed) to think of decisions in terms of fifty-year time horizons - almost as if he couldn't conceive of political action except in long-run terms. I'm paraphrasing a bit here, and this might not be exactly what Brooks meant, but I think it's an interesting way to think about what's gone wrong - and occasionally right - in the Bush Presidency, and especially the extent to which Bush's actions have been influenced, unconsciously or consciously, by the long-running American narrative of What Makes Presidents Great, often to the detriment of his day-to-day execution of the job.

Brooks also noted, echoing Yuval Levin's argument about honor politics, that McCain's unconscious structures are essentially pre-Christian - and not just, he added, because McCain is older than Jesus Christ. The crack, inevitably, prompted an objection from an outraged seventysomething attendee, who wanted to make it clear that she wasn't older than Jesus. Good times ...

Comments (18)

OK, I'm starting to get really worried about your whole oxygen deprivation thing.

Lord, I thought I was reading Matt Y. I guess I should check my own oxygen supply. Apologies to whoever pleases.

Brooks on neuroscience. I'll bet Brooks' book will be about as good as his column on IQ, i.e. it will mostly be a feel good, P.C. cop out.

I've always felt that Brooks was Tom Wolfe's natural successor. And, of course, Wolfe went down this same neuroscience route in the 1990s, too.

I'm thinking specifically of the Bush doctrine of expanding executive power (everywhere in the world is a battlefield and the president has wartime powers on the battlefield until the War on Terror is officially won) and entitlement spending here, and trying to square these with Brooks' statements.

I guess you could make the case that Bush was taking the long view on such issues, but to do so would imply his governing philosophy is akin to ROBERT FRIGGIN' MUGABE.

Seriously, why does anyone even read David Brooks anymore, much less sit and listen to him offer his presumably even-more-poorly-thought-through ideas in person? That guy's column is the newspaper equivalent of Two and a Half Men: no one know's why it's still around or who likes it, the people who run it are probably mildly embarassed by it, but to pull the plug now would be to force them to admit their mistake, and so it persists.

It sounds like Brooks has been reading "The Happiness Hypothesis" or other work by (Jonathan?) Haidt.

A good book. I recommend it.

This is a poor attempt by Brooks and Bush to justify Bush's ineptitude.

This is a poor attempt by Brooks and Bush to justify Bush's ineptitude.

This is a poor attempt by Brooks and Bush to justify Bush's ineptitude.

It makes perfect sense for Bush to think that.

After all, he screwed around and failed for most of his life, but when he hits his 50s, woah, he's President! Everything turned out okay!

No exit strategy sure does = "long term" thinking.
Mounds of debt sure does = "long term" thinking.

Ross(aka. Mr. Magoo) lives in a Mr. Rogers world where 50 years from now it will be revealed to all that Bush was a genius on par with Lincoln, and the rest of us were stubborn naifs.

Ross, please. Get over yourself.

Funny, I thought most of the problems of Bush's presidency could be blamed on short term thinking, not long term thinking. The most obvious example of this is that he failed to think about the long term consequences of invading Iraq, of course. But his energy policies are another. Some times he hasn't even had short-term policies for problems, he's just decided to ignore them.

And I see no evidence that he has or had any 50 year plans. Hoping that, after doing or not doing the things he's done, in 50 years history will look on them kindly, or that there will be good results to show for them, does not count as a "plan" or "long term thinking" in my view. That's just an excuse. It has been applied after political actions have been taken and don't work out, not before them.

Of course, I'm a liberal so this might be my bias interpretation of his policies, so if anyone wants to prove me wrong by giving me examples of Bush's long term visions of the future that precipitated his political actions, by all means, go ahead.

What was the historical context which governed Bush's actions after New Orleans, Ross? What grand vision meant the 'day-to-day' details of trying to save people from dying got obscured?

Just ridiculous.

Hitler + 1 = Germany is a virtual wasteland.
Hitler + 50 = Germany is doing great!

Stalin + 1 = So many dead for nothing.
Stalin + 50 = Look where Russia is today!

50 years is long enough for other people to fix whatever you've done... at least in the modern era.

To take responsibility for an eventual positive outcome -- ignoring the possibility, indeed likelihood, of even more positive outcomes obliterated by your choices -- requires intellectual dishonesty, an ignorance of history, and a moral vacuum. Bush, the perfect man for imperfect times.

Being such a total screw-up in the short-term, the long-term is all he has left.

Bush as a long-range thinker? I don't get it.

If Bush is so prescient, why has he gone down such a short-sighted route? He has built up a structural fiscal deficit that has undermined our currency to its lowers point in history. He has completely ignored global warming and instead eviscerated our environmental protection. He has mired us in two Middle Eastern wars with no vision on how to conclude them satisfactorily. During his reign, the cost of housing and college tuition threatens to completely undermine the American middle class.

Ironically, his greatest (and unintentional) legacy may be to end world reliance on oil by making it so expensive that we have no choice but to abandon it.

David Brooks is actually a vapid person with a shallow grasp of whatever he discusses. Is that what they taught you was "good" at Harvard, Ross? Did you generally read explorations of "neuroscience" by those who know nothing of the subject?

But then, you probably thought "Bobo" rivaled Margaret Mead for a seminal work of anthropology.

I sure hope you actually know better than this. After all, if Brooks had the slightest understanding of what he terms "neuroscience," he'd recognize in Bush serious neurological damage. But no, he still is trying to find that pony in the horsepoop... oh, I mean, the unconscious there in Bush. Hard to find when there's little even consciousness there.

I hope that in the long-term, Bush hasn't caused permanent harm for the country and world. But with 80% of the populace worried we're on the wrong track, with a large majority thinking the Founders would be disappointed, I'd say both Brooks and Bush are exhibiting, and I'm being generous here, wishful thinking. Truly, if that's the level of thinking Brooks is exhibiting, why on earth would you think his book will be "good"?

And talk about "logrolling in our times." You pundits all need to buff each other's paint job, you know, to keep us from wondering why the hell someone who never took a science course beyond freshman year would write a book about "neuroscience"... oh, right. We're supposed to believe you guys are experts in anything.

Sad. Delusions of grandeur... Is that what Brooks is going to explore?