We know Clinton was in control, we know he didn't always operate from the highest motives, and since he was smarter and more manipulative than his staff, I doubt they often, if ever, sent him off in directions he didn't intend to go. All those things are pretty well documented, I think.
As for Bush, it's not that I find the dynamics of a simple man hard to understand--I'm actually a pretty simple guy myself, oddly enough--or that I "prefer" more complicated folk. It's that the day-to-day realities of modern presidential leadership are so complicated and complex that "simplicity," even if it's entirely authentic and heartfelt, just doesn't provide a comprehensive or useful guide to action. There are inevitably a vast range of subtle judgment calls that need to be made on a host of different issues, and lots of things can be rationalized under the same "simple" general framework depending on how stuff is spun, prioritized, etc.
We're seeing that happen with Korean policy right in front of us at the moment, as "simplicity" runs head on into complex reality. So what you really have to know about Bush is not just that he's a simple guy with a few gut principles, but what kind of tack he generally takes when called upon to operationalize his principles in dealing with the world--and how much he himself is really in command of that process, as opposed to being led by his subordinates.
I don't have the personal knowledge of Bush and his White House that I did of Clinton, and I don't trust much of what I hear in the press about the subject, since it's obviously spun hugely. So I don't feel it's appropriate for me to have a strong opinion on the subject yet. When we get a longer track record, more leaks, more memoirs and gossip, and so forth, then we'll be able to fit the pieces into a more reliable picture, I think.
tb@Iwasbeingpartlyironic.duh |
