The Banality of Harm: A Psychological Profile of George Bush

One of the better psychological profiles I have seen written about Bush.

The Banality of Harm: A Psychological Profile of George Bush
Written by Adam Ash
Published October 25, 2006
See also:
» The Boston Globe Feels the Pinch
» Spinning on the Axis
» Satire: Republicans Use Stingray Attacks In Campaign Ads
This past weekend, I caught the last fifteen minutes of what looked like a long interview with President Bush by Bill O’Reilly on Fox.

This was a different president from what I’ve seen before. He was with one of his own: a fellow far-right conservative. He smiled a lot. He spoke in an unbuttoned, less guarded way than usual, although he was still the typically defensive politician who refused to be drawn into any controversy not of his own making. He ducked a few questions – “what interrogation methods are we talking about?” and “is waterboarding torture?” – but this was all part of the expected cat-and-mouse pantomime of a politician playing the media. He was enjoying himself. His answers shot out easily. Conveniently, all his answers were rote. One had heard them before. (This habit gives Bush the quality of a wind-up doll. It can also make him a total bore. Question: has America become as boring as our president?)

Nevertheless, what I saw changed my whole view of Bush and his presidency.

For one, I’d never seen him this real before. Here at last he was appearing as himself. The actual Oz. Authentic. What you saw was who he was. All natural, relaxed and friendly, shooting the breeze with a confidant. In this informal atmosphere, one big difference stood out between him and any other current politician of a similar standing — Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, John Edwards, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair.

A Big Bang difference. A cosmic gulf.

Bush was a gulf away from them because of one big quality, or lack thereof: he came across as utterly unsophisticated. He was to a different manor — nay, universe — born. So much so, he bordered on the simple-minded. He conversed on the level of a high-school C student. My companion was so disgusted by what she called this “low-end” quality that she left the room.

Maybe it was because Bill O’Reilly ain’t all that sophisticated himself. Still, O’Reilly looked like the smarter guy, which was pretty bizarre, given that Bush is the president.

There is literally no intellectual depth or curiosity or layers to Bush. The man is perfectly uncultured. He said he had read three biographies of Washington, but he said it as if he was reporting on assigned high-school homework. He didn’t make any interesting remarks about Washington, as you’d get from a Clinton or a Gore or a Blair. He merely said historians are still arguing over Washington’s legacy, like they will one day over his. Washington was not a separate figure; no more than a measure. For the rest, Bush’s level of language and thought was as low and flat and empty as a denuded prairie.

I thought to myself: how can this unsophisticated man come from the Bush family? His father is sophisticated. The family is a blue-blood, Yale-bred, upper-class lot.


(con't) http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/25/160429.php

over Washington’s legacy, like they will one day over his."






as much as the *moron would like to equate the two, the argument is over.
dp

The first time he mentioned the 'who knows how historians will write about my presidency' type line that led into how other presidents were viewed differently by different historians over time came back around 2004 after a really bad press conference appearance where bush was asked if he had made any mistakes and he hemmed and hawed and basically said i can't think of any, but if you had given me that question ahead of time.... hehehe.... (ugh!)

Someone on his speech writing staff knew that he had to have a pat line of response to such questions in the future. Thus the now trite "historians view...." line is used. Right, we all believe he has read three books on George Washington (unless they were of the 'scholastic reader' type for 3rd graders). All part of his schtick. Totally vacuous.

taking all into consideration he isn't doing too badly, except Katrina response was a no-no! Much of the world hates him, only 28% of those polled felt he was doing ok in Iraq while 71% said he was failing miserably in Iraq.

It is amazing that a blue blooded trust fund baby can be so unsophisticated. And how do you figure someone who went to Yale and Harvard could possibly be such an incurious dolt?

My wife's sister married into money so while that was going on we had to go to all these parties and events around the wedding to hang with the beautiful people. I was absolutely stunned as to how many of these people, and many of them the trust fund kids, just flat out have no manners.

You would be surprised at the upper-class people who don't read books, and are not curious about anything.

The upper-middle class is into culture: art museums, symphonies, the ballet, operas, theater, etc. That's how I was raised, to be an avid reader and an avid concert-goer. We had season tickets to the symphony when I was in junior high.

Current example: The neighbors, where "Biff" probably makes $200K a year or so, have toddlers. I suggested they take them to see "Hansel and Gretel" at the opera. "Muff" whined that "somebody else told us to do that too." I told them I took my child when she was that age (3 or 4) and she was fascinated. I also explained that they sing it in English and put the words up over the stage in real time.

So these folks have tons of money, huge fricking IRAs, a perfect house, a perfect life, etc. but don't want to take their kids to anything resembling a classic work of performing art.

In Kitty Kelley's "The Family" which is about the Bush family, she quotes a visitor to the house as saying their huge house in Kennebunkport had ONE book in it, and it was something about Ben Franklin and Farts.

Curiouser and curiouser.....:wtf:

I wonder if he's simply unable to process "failure" as a symptom of some sort of personality disorder. He's failed miserably at everything in his life and yet struts around like a self-satisfied, unbalanced peacock.

The disturbing fact that he was elected President will haunt this country for decades.

and this is the man with his finger on the little red button . . . if that's not enough to terrify you, nothing is . . .

Bush (and Cheney) MUST be removed from office, because the damage he can do -- to the nation and to the planet -- in the next two years is almost beyond comprehension . . .

kicked and highly recommended . . .

giving him a copy of Camus, which I doubt he really read. Now don't get me wrong, Camus is o.k. but I wouldn't call him an intellectual giant.

Shrewd and cunning. Like my dog.

I just don't think there is anybody home. Doesn't think about things, doesn't care about things. Just would rather be out riding his bike or fishing.

He is strictly limited to thinking in binary terms. I read somewhere that one of Rove's big jobs is to explain the nuances in various situation in terms that George can understand.

A whole fucking DYNASTY of Snakes.

:freak:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

Idiot Sumbitch prolly don't even KNOW about Irish Whiskey...

Many if not most of us here have known most of this for about 4 - 6 years. Hell, Molly Ivins could have told you all of this before he even left Texas.

Why should he imagine it exists? He has already demonstrated that he has neither curiosity nor imagination. Consequently, as long as his sheltered elite world remains intact, he knows he has done nothing wrong.

I'm not very far, but I'm having problems with it. Some of his comments are near on-target, others are vastly off base IMO.

Here, for example:

This man, who promises to protect us, can easily lead us over a cliff. Ironically, he appears to have done so. He thinks he’s saving our economy with tax cuts, yet he spends us into crushing debt. He thinks he’s keeping the country safe by viewing terrorism as a war in Iraq — instead of tackling it as a challenging police matter.

And WHAT would he say if he thought (or better yet, knew) that Bush isn't interested in "saving our economy" and may, in fact, be wrecking it on purpose -- to serve globalization, PNAC world domination, and other fascist goals?

I'm sick and tired of people everywhere assuming that Bush and Cheney and certain others in this government actually have the national's best interests at heart, but are just wrong-headed.

It's great the country has gotten its belly fully of Bush. Now I'm waiting for them to smarten up and "get it" about his real motivations.

Or this:

Bush has no idea what harm he’s caused.

Of COURSE the psychopath know what harm he's caused. He revels in it.

He's not sophisticated. He's elitist. There's a vast difference. Bill Clinton is sophisticated. He has a large intellect and the ability to deal with people in a way that sets them at ease. Whereas Bush 41 is an elitist. He is smart, but he's also bigoted and smallminded.

Now come on, in that context George Sr. is an intellectual giant.

He is also mentally ill.