Gentle readers may assume that SWNID is so partisan as never to criticize President Bush. Read on, gentle readers, and learn otherwise.
David Ignatius, the often-worthwhile columnist for the Washington Post, today offers an insightful critique of the weaknesses of Bush's administrative style. He faults Bush for inattention to detail, focus on "home runs" at the expense of "singles," failure to appoint a chief of staff who will see to the details, and a focus on personal loyalty at the expense of performance.
The indispensable John Podhoretz says much the same, while noting that this management failure, not racism, is to blame for the lousy response to the hurricane.
With the additional observation that local officials were ghastly in their roles, SWNID agrees. These are faults that are obvious, and this is analysis that's fair. We'll quibble with Ignatius on one point: we affirm that Bush has been very clear not only that we must "stay the course" in Iraq but in defining what the course is. Last I checked, they were moving toward a referendum on a constitution over there. Sounds like management by objective to me.
All leaders have strengths. With their strengths come weaknesses. Bush has his too, and from Katrina he can still learn to compensate for them. Like Reagan's Iran-Contra cleanup, Bush's giving attention to the details of performance could be just the thing to give energy to the last years of his lame-duck term.
No comments:
Post a Comment