Now compare the Lincoln picture with a recent photo of President Bush, age 61.
David Brooks is thrilled that President Bush seems impervious to bad news and looks great. I'm not. The president should be rolling on the floor in agony. We'd feel better about him if he was, as Peggy Noonan suggested last week.
My reading of history suggests that the greatest leaders all suffer terribly as they deal with the great events facing them. GW, Lincoln, FDR--all of them, even as they managed to retain their balance wore the cares of their office on their faces. FDR at the end of his 2nd term told a friend he couldn't possibly consider a 3rd term unless events in Europe went terribly awry (as they did). He was simply too tired. You can get up about the room when you're tired and go for a walk, FDR said. But he had to sit in his chair day after day and week after week and he was just sick of it.
There is something pathologically strange about Bush's imperviousness to bad news. As I have indicated before, I believe it stems from a combination of his religious faith and history of alcoholism. I find neither explanation reassuring.
Early to bed, early to rise,
I think it's called being "Delusional".
Re: Early to bed, early to rise,
4/21/05 at Middlebury College:
"I’d been told, first of all, that the President never read anything beyond his daily press and intelligence digests. So it was certainly a surprise to find that he had read my book, and that he had done so ahead of his own staff. We’ve since learned, of course, that the President has a pretty eclectic reading list, ranging from Nathan Sharansky and Ron Chernow to Tom Wolfe."
Professor Shenkman - You either dismiss or ignore Brooks' point about the President's dealings with Gold Star families/wounded veterans. I personally have seem him *deeply* affected by such meetings (always off limits to media) with GSF -- even when a few of the family members use the time to sharply rebuke him. We don't have a camera in the Oval Office or private quarters -- so if you are going by how the President looks or his physical evaluations, that judgment seems rather superficial for a trained historian. I would agree with you if he did not show any emotions when in situations such as GSF/wounded veterans; however, my first hand observations provide evidence to the contrary. Perhaps Noonan is right, but I would find a President using such opportunities to "show his/her emotions" for public consumption as
cheap political theatrics.
Also, as a historian, are you saying that impact of OIF/OEF with 25K casualties (3.5K dead) from a force of 1.5 M should impact one the same as the Civil War with 600,000+ casualties from a combined force of around 4 Million soldiers? I bemoan any loss, but I can't even comprehend the impact on a the scale of the Civil War (such as losing 10,000 in a single day). Would rather have a President who takes the time to eat, exercise, and get at least some minimal required sleep than one who becomes too exhausted physically and mentally to make thoughtful decisions?
I suspect, as mentioned in the Brooks' article, the President -- more than faith or personal experiences -- believes he is right about the direction of his overall grand strategy, and specific implementation. The National Security Strategies and his 2d inauguaration speech are fairly consistent on his beliefs. You can argue his basic tenets are faulty/wrong -- and thus his strategy; however, even Lincoln was willing to conduct an all-out campaign to end the war in the event he lost the 1864 election (unshakeable belief in his overall strategy despite public opinion).
I only wish the President acted like Lincoln in dispensing with generals (and top civilians) sooner.