The mind meld of the mediocrities

It turns out I’m not the only one who’s noticed the alarming “twin-brain” syndrome at the highest level of our government. The below, sent by Ken Hechtman, is from a new book about Condoleezza Rice excerpted in Newsweek:

“There was this connective stuff—that was really fully under way by the summer of 1999,” said Rice’s friend Coit “Chip” Blacker. “There’s a funny kind of transfer of energy and ideas that’s almost—not random, but unstructured. It’s as though they’re Siamese twins joined at the frontal lobe.”

The mind meld grew stronger in Washington, especially after 9/11. But as much as it reassured Bush to have the woman he called his “sister” by his side, their closeness also became one of the administration’s liabilities in the run-up to the war in Iraq. To Scowcroft, for whom Rice had worked in the Bush Sr. White House directing Soviet policy at the end of the cold war, the major task of the national security adviser was to be the skeptic-in-chief: “My approach to almost every question is to view it with informed skepticism … If it doesn’t work, what happens?” (Scowcroft said that in 1987.) But Rice tended to enable the president’s missteps rather than check them. The basis of the relationship had been formed in the campaign: she molded his instincts, she didn’t challenge them. So as the administration marched toward war in Iraq, she didn’t push back. She didn’t question troop levels or the Defense Department’s rosy post-Saddam scenarios. She didn’t demand the administration devise a single, unified plan for after Saddam’s statue fell.

* * *

The fact that Bush thought it was appropriate to have as his top national security advisor a woman whom he considered his “sister,” and who never disagreed with him, and whose close family-like relationship with him he constantly trumpeted, is but the latest indication of the decline into personalism that characterizes not only the Bush White House but our entire culture. The idea of a public sphere as distinct from the personal sphere barely exists any longer. This is a large subject with vast implications for our society that have barely been examined. For the moment, suffice it to say that it is a typical product of liberalism, meaning the practical rejection of the transcendent, and the resulting experience that there is nothing higher than the self, its feelings, and its desires.

Here is a selection of VFR posts on Condi and her twin brain:

Whose twin? Whose brain? (This post contains a reformulation of my analysis of Bush’s leadership style. It’s not just instinct plus prayer; it’s Rice’s brain plus instinct plus prayer.)

A quasi-treasonous attorney general for a quasi-treasonous president

To make Iraq seem better, Bush/Rice make America seem worse

Is Morris sincere in pushing Rice?

America and the Method of Bush: Why do we simply assume that democratization will be a good thing?

The guilty civilization that ended slavery and integrated baseball

Potholes and terrorism

What the breakdown of political debate portends for this country

- end of initial entry -

Brandon F. writes:

Here is a story about the book on Rice.

LA replies:

Unfortunately, we can’t take these criticisms seriously as they are from the left. Look at their “case” against her:

“The invasion of Iraq, the missed opportunity with Iran, the breach in relations with Europe, the Arab anger at a perceived bias against the Palestinians—all of these problems were the direct result of decisions she helped make in the White House,” he writes.

How can we take seriously criticisms of Rice that put in the same class, as evidence for her poor performance, the catastrophic invasion of Iraq sans after-invasion plan, and her supposed failure to be sufficiently interested in the death cult known as the Palestinian people?

Alex A. writes:

You write:

“…..the decline into personalism that characterizes not only the Bush White House but our entire culture. The idea of a public sphere as distinct from the personal sphere barely exists any longer. This is a large subject with vast implications for our society that have barely been examined. For the moment, suffice it to say that it is a typical product of liberalism, meaning the practical rejection of the transcendent, and the resulting experience that there is nothing higher than the self, its feelings, and its desires.”

This is an interesting speculation, and I suspect that it ramifies into the feminization of politics and society. Mastering the rational art of the possible in addressing political questions has been superseded by a touchy-feely and personalized affectation of statecraft. Intractable difficulties between nations are approached as if a smile, a handshake, and sincere expressions of sympathy can iron them out. It’s as if E M Forster’s effete and catch-all maxim, “only connect” could be the “personal” basis on which politicians might solve problems (“together”) which have ancient foundations and are very complicated.

In a feminized discourse, empathy displaces impersonal inquiry and sentimental pleading trumps reasoned argument.

Kenneth Minogue (in The Liberal Mind), numbers among the illusions of liberalism, the belief in ultimate agreement—”the idea that will and desire can be ultimately sovereign in human affairs and that things will eventually pan out the way we want them to”. This seems to correspond to a feminized intuition of a “nice” world; not the world as it is, but as it ought to be.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 02, 2007 08:41 PM | Send