Oedipus Bush

It is a familiar historical argument: Hitler's bitter rage over his missing testicle metastasized into WWII; Napoleon's short stature drove him to compensate by conquering Europe; Washington couldn't have kids, so he gave birth to the nation. Personal crises, shortcomings, and psychological hurtles drive important people to do what they do, and their lack of power in one critical arena drives them to a surfeit of power in another.

These cases are often roundly criticized in the academy, and in popular consciousness they are often used to justify inscrutable historical events through a sort of crude reductionism. Misleading as they may be, however, projecting historical turns onto individual psychologies can shed some light on a situation. After all, what is history but mass psychology writ large? The arguments presented above just take out the masses part to focus on the individuals driving change.

A revealing, updated version of the "power envy" hypothesis is presented in the recent book by Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, The Bush Tragedy. The argument is not a new one exactly. Weisberg contends that Bush's actions while in office are a result of his complicated relationship with his father, George H.W. Throughout his life, Bush has conducted himself as a sort of sad parody of his father: dad was a star scholar at Yale, son was a C student at the same institute; dad was a war hero, son was a reservist who dodged active combat; dad was a highly successful oil man, son was a floundering incompetent in the same field. The fact that the son met failure where his father experienced success wreaked havoc on the younger man's attitudes towards himself. This was in good part why he was driven to alcohol and drugs. He simply couldn't live in his father's shadow any longer. A break was bound to happen.

This moment came when George W. was elected president. Rather than following feebly in his father's footsteps, the newly elected Bush sought off on a different course - in essence, he turned his father's political methods on their head. Where H.W. was moderate, W. is conservative; where H.W. was secular, W. is religious; where H.W. surrounded himself with conflicting views, W. chooses a side and sticks to it, and so on. Weisberg reveals that H.W's chief advisor Brent Scrowcroft would send the son memos and suggestions. George W's break with his father's ways was complete: "I'm sick and tired of getting papers from Brent Scrowcroft telling me what to do, and I never want to see another one again." (Or I'll hold my breath!)

It is very easy to forget this sometimes, caught up as we are in the supreme complexity of world affairs, but decision making on a global scale still comes down to fallible individuals making decisions. Of course, an Iraq War-sized decision had strong geopolitical forces and big money behind it, so reducing it to straight-up childish angst isn't fair or accurate. Nonetheless, personal psychology played a huge role in the formation of the Bush Doctrine. Saying that he was "fighting Daddy's war" may be too glib; but in effect it's true. Unlike every other failure, Bush wanted to do something his father couldn't do.

Students of government and political history are trained in the methodology of political science, law, and history. But some things, as much as these disciplines help, cannot be explained by pure, cold, collective forces alone, nor the disciplines that examine them. Critical insights into the Bush years can be learned from taking Psychology 101. Indeed, the insecurities of one powerful man have, at least in part, unleashed great insecurity upon the world.

Update: One Nation Under God II

Weisberg gave an interesting interview on Fresh Air yesterday afternoon where he explicitly addressed Bush's faith. Again, in direct contrast to his father, Bush adopted a fundamentalist form of Christianity in the 80s just as his life was spiraling out of control. But how deep does Bush's faith go? Weisberg said: "Bush's theology is free of content but is sophisticated and artful at applying religion to politics." According to the author, even from his earlier days as an Evangelist, Bush eschewed real understanding of the faith for a sort of broad, non-specific, highly-politicized version of Christianity. He has been both sincere and calculated in his faith since the moment of conversion.