David Brooks, please hush up you ninny!

So I open up the newspaper this morning to the op ed page and am greeted by the headline "Bush maintains an Abiding Faith in Power of Leadership" with the name and picture of David Brooks next to it. Brooks explains that "Far from being beleaguered" (like most of the current Republican Senators), Bush "was assertive and good humored" in a recent press conference. Brooks left the session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. Brooks sees a religious source to his cheerfulness- as Bush says himself, "I do believe that there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist". 

The only voice of doubt that whispers in the mind of David Brooks is the voice of Leo Tolstoy, the odd but brilliant Russian novelist and moralist who deflated the mystique of his age, and perhaps our own. Tolstoy denied the "weltgeist" concept that held that a political leader could embody the spirit of his age and change the world with his daring acts. Piffle, said Tolstoy- leaders are the playthings of great masses of humans beneath them whose economic actions and personal beliefs determine their actions.  Yeah, that's a valid concern, David, which does indeed stand as a contrast to W's cocksure belief in his status as a Hegelian Ubermensch. But you are missing the point in all this philosophizing. You still do not understand the limited mind of George W. Bush.

Fact is, W is simply not the sharpest tool in the shed. You may still find him "a smart and compelling presence in person", but most of us do not, and we are not going to change our minds at this point. Those religious convictions that freedom is God's will mean little to me, and I think that W might have better spent the time in those morning prayer sessions reading a history of Iraq.  As to his aura of being liberated and decisive, well, it's not an act. He is never going to have to face the public in the election booth again, and he frankly does not give a damn what we think of him.  Contrast that with the dispirited Senators who have to try to explain to voters their acquiescence to his stupid pseudo planning in Iraq and you get the point.  Lame Duck, not love, means never having to say you're sorry.   

David, I realize that when you are a Republican opinion piece writer, there are times that you have to struggle to say something nice. But please, just let it go. Look beyond the decisive persona projected by this man and you will see that he has learned nothing from his six years in the seat of power.  He still bases policy on odd religious convictions, bends down to lick the boots of major industries on cue, and clings to the fiction that he is fostering opportunity rather than cutting a chasm between rich and poor.  Karl Rove still retains Carte Blanche to exercise a partisan grip over most of the executive branch, despite a steady stream of well documented complaints from scientists, doctors, lawyers, and regulators. Schedules are changed, reports are re-written, and emails are run through the Republican National Committee rather than the White House or the federal agencies.  

"When there are no facts to support you, say something anyway so that there will be a semblance of real argument"- page one of what I imagine to be Karl Rove's book of political truths. And you fell in line, David, you fell in line.