≡ Download Gratis The Bush Tragedy Jacob Weisberg Books

The Bush Tragedy Jacob Weisberg Books

Download As PDF : The Bush Tragedy Jacob Weisberg Books

The Bush Tragedy Jacob Weisberg Books

Jacob Weisberg is a writer that I always found readable despite his different viewpoint, like Joe Klein
of Newsweek, the once anonymous author of Primary Colors. I first encountered Weisberg in Slate
in its heady days at the turn of the millennium. I enjoyed his articles "Republicans Test Their Metal"
about when Alan Keyes criticized John McCain for his joke about Nine Inch Nails, and "Anarchy in
the GOP", when Gary Bauer replied because Keyes jumped into a mosh pit of Rage Against the
Machine (and gained Michael Moore's endorsement!). Weisberg is best known for his collections
of Bushisms, but he neither hates George W. nor thinks he is dumb. This is a much more complex
analysis in this book.

He notes Bush 41's dismissal of the psychobabble about him and his son, and adds that not only
Freud but Marx is insufficient, i.e. analyzing everything in terms of the Bushes being rich. But he
then goes into a broadly Freudian analysis, using Shakespeare's Henry III, IV and V as a tragic
framework for forming psychoanalytic archetypes.

Even though W. described himself as more like his mother Barbara, Weisberg's argument is that
he's more like his grandmother and her family, the Walkers. There's a lengthy contrast of the
Walkers and the Bushes. They're both caricatured as rich elite WASPs, but there was a big
difference. The Prescott Bush side always had a sense of noblesse oblige and propriety, while the
Walkers were the source of the combative and brash nature of W. Weisberg goes into a detailed
analysis of "Pappa" and many other members of the family. One of the main points of the book
is that there was a need for the Bushes to be self-made even though they were privileged. This
applies to Jeb and of course George W. As a result, throughout his adult life he had a need to
distinguish himself and show independence. Most of the differences, political, religious, psychological,
behavioral, stylistic, etc. can be attributed to these factors. For instance, he went to Yale but
had to show that he was unimpressed with that whole scene, a source of his anti-intellectualism.
His inarticulate speech can be attributed to dyslexia and ADHD but also that conscious or
unconscious stance of being unimpressed. Instead he relied on charm and boisterous humor
just as Bill Clinton did with his empathy and intense listening. Clinton said of his successor,
he doesn't know anything, he doesn't want to know anything, but he's not dumb.

Then there's an analysis of Karl Rove, the master political strategist, the most skilled of
his generation. Weisberg attributes the politicization of 9/11 to Rove. I found him
too cynical about Bush's religious faith. It's true that it's therapeutic, emphasizing
purpose and direction more than sin and hell. But just because details in the stories
change in emphasis doesn't mean the stories aren't true. That's a basic point about
the Four Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John. They remember different details
about Jesus but the stories are all true even if they don't match up in detail.

Then there's Dick Cheney of course. I found Weisberg's analysis helpful, tracing
Cheney and Rumsfeld back to the Ford administration, probably the post WWII
presidency about which we know the least. They were not neocons but nationalist
hawks, but usually fellow travelers. There's not much about Perle but a lot about
Wolfowitz. Weisberg says "he was the architect of the Iraq War, but actually the
war could have used an architect. He was more like the theologian" with all
the big picture arguments about worldwide democracy inspired by Bernard
Lewis' study of the decline of the Islamic civilization. Cheney became the
most powerful VP because he knew how to frame things so that W. was still
in charge and leading. In an odd way Cheney was humble, in contrast with
Rumsfeld. He didn't care about being famous or popular, he just wanted
to influence things. This is also a contrast with, say, Newt Gingrich, who
was very intelligent and saw himself as the preserver of civilization
from an early age, and was equally brash in public. Cheney really cared
about his ideas, whether it was the balance of the executive branch-I
don't get that one, read Article I and the importance of Congress, as
Ben Sasse said at the Kavanaugh hearings. But anyway Cheney really
believed it that the executive branch was the one losing out.

I was looking forward to the Condi Rice part, but it never really
happened. But apparently they were really tight. Cheney had
to frame things so that W. was still the leader, and Condi would
go along with Bush. Weisberg's introduction seemed to suggest
that there would be detailed analysis of Rove, Cheney and Rice,
but I didn't feel like there was enough Rice. She may have been
the most interesting of them all. She recently wrote a book
about Democracy, of course everything these days is
a reaction to the Donald. But even by 2008, she had become
more of a hardliner idealist in terms of spreading democracy
than either Cheney or Rumsfeld. As for Laura Bush, there's
not a whole lot but she considered herself a liberal even
if married to a Republican politician. When asked
about Rove and Congress's views on gay marriage
and a constitutional amendment, she said "I didn't
know Karl is an elected official". Right on TV!


Tags : Amazon.com: The Bush Tragedy (9781400066780): Jacob Weisberg: Books,Jacob Weisberg,The Bush Tragedy,Random House,1400066786,American Government - Executive Branch,Presidents;United States;Biography.,United States;Politics and government;2001-2009.,(George Walker),,1946-,Biography,Biography & Autobiography,Biography & Autobiography Presidents & Heads of State,Biography Autobiography,BiographyAutobiography,Bush, George W.,Family,Government - Executive Branch,History United States 21st Century,Political Psychology,Political Science American Government Executive Branch,Political and social views,Presidents,Presidents & Heads of State,U.S. President,United States,United States - 21st Century

The Bush Tragedy Jacob Weisberg Books Reviews

Nice book.
I got tired of hearing all the comparisons with Shakespeare's characters.
Though not a psychologist, Weisberg has created an excellent historical and psychological study of George W Bush. From his well known rivalry with his father, to his families less well known history of brashness, hotheadedness and proclivity for action over thought. Weisberg is a natural writer and it shows here. This is an enjoyable read, and anyone interested in the genealogical or psychological underpinnings for some of the former presidents actions will be well served by this book.
Explains a lot of the failures of G.W. by illuminating his vulnerabilities withou being mean-spirited. Highly recommended.
In The Purloined Letter, Edgar Allan Poe imagines a story where a damning letter that can bring doom to the monarchy is hidden in plain sight, available for everyone to see but escaping the police's gaze because of its obvious location and minor changes in its appearance. This story was later taken up by psychoanalysts as a metaphor of their own method of enquiry. Marie Bonaparte, Freud's French disciple, stressed that the purloined letter in the story symbolizes regret for missing maternal penis and reproach for its loss by the son-detective. Jacques Lacan, rebellious heir to the Freudian tradition, saw the letter as the sign of the constitutive lack which forms the keystone of the symbolic order.

Although he cautions his reader against what he calls "psychobabble", Jacob Weisberg also claims the Freudian legacy. The Freud he refers to is the co-author of Woodrow Wilson's biography, in which he argues that Wilson's inability to process aggressive feelings towards his father left him increasingly messianic and detached from reality "facts ceased to exist for him if they conflicted with his unconscious desires".

But Weisberg also implicitly refers to Poe's narrative to characterize his method of investigation "In pursuit of leaks and scoops, we journalists often miss what's hiding in plain sight. The key that unlocks the mystery of political motivation is seldom hidden in a locked vault. It's usually right in front of us".

Indeed, there is a purloined letter in almost every chapter of The Bush Tragedy. The elusive letter is most obviously revealed in the opening chapter, where the key to George W. Bush's destiny is to be found in his middle initial. According to Weisberg's version of the family story, "W" is the product of two family traditions, the Bushes and the Walkers, and he is in many ways more a Walker than a Bush. As is well known, only one letter separates him from his father, and the towering figure loomed large on everything he did to gain recognition or assert independence.

Weisberg also exposes the plans of the two most controversial characters of the Bush presidency Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. As he demonstrates, they were not driven by a hidden agenda or a secret plot to take over America they acted in plain sight, and their intentions had been publicized all along. Rove's grandiose historical ambition was to achieve nationally what he had done in Texas operate a major political realignment and ensure Republican dominance for decades to come. Cheney, otherwise secretive and manipulative, never hid his intention to expand executive power and limit interference by the legislative branch. The writing was on the wall for all people to see.

Another version of the tell-tale letter is the wave of anthrax letters that followed the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Weisberg greatly reevaluates this episode without the anthrax attacks, Cheney would never have gained such ascendency over the president, and Bush probably would not have invaded Iraq.

I have read several biographies of American presidents and I thought the genre improved with the passage of time, with history providing a decanter that allowed the best wine bottles to mellow. But Weisberg's Bush Tragedy proves that a portrait could be written on the spur of time and still claim a commanding place on history's bookshelves.
There is a good deal of information about the Bush family with in this book. its by no means a complete history. But it allows you to see some of the issues that were going on but honestly it does not go into the hard core details of what was going on and why things took the turn they did. I do not think my former history professor would have used this book in his class even for light reading.
Jacob Weisberg is a writer that I always found readable despite his different viewpoint, like Joe Klein
of Newsweek, the once anonymous author of Primary Colors. I first encountered Weisberg in Slate
in its heady days at the turn of the millennium. I enjoyed his articles "Republicans Test Their Metal"
about when Alan Keyes criticized John McCain for his joke about Nine Inch Nails, and "Anarchy in
the GOP", when Gary Bauer replied because Keyes jumped into a mosh pit of Rage Against the
Machine (and gained Michael Moore's endorsement!). Weisberg is best known for his collections
of Bushisms, but he neither hates George W. nor thinks he is dumb. This is a much more complex
analysis in this book.

He notes Bush 41's dismissal of the psychobabble about him and his son, and adds that not only
Freud but Marx is insufficient, i.e. analyzing everything in terms of the Bushes being rich. But he
then goes into a broadly Freudian analysis, using Shakespeare's Henry III, IV and V as a tragic
framework for forming psychoanalytic archetypes.

Even though W. described himself as more like his mother Barbara, Weisberg's argument is that
he's more like his grandmother and her family, the Walkers. There's a lengthy contrast of the
Walkers and the Bushes. They're both caricatured as rich elite WASPs, but there was a big
difference. The Prescott Bush side always had a sense of noblesse oblige and propriety, while the
Walkers were the source of the combative and brash nature of W. Weisberg goes into a detailed
analysis of "Pappa" and many other members of the family. One of the main points of the book
is that there was a need for the Bushes to be self-made even though they were privileged. This
applies to Jeb and of course George W. As a result, throughout his adult life he had a need to
distinguish himself and show independence. Most of the differences, political, religious, psychological,
behavioral, stylistic, etc. can be attributed to these factors. For instance, he went to Yale but
had to show that he was unimpressed with that whole scene, a source of his anti-intellectualism.
His inarticulate speech can be attributed to dyslexia and ADHD but also that conscious or
unconscious stance of being unimpressed. Instead he relied on charm and boisterous humor
just as Bill Clinton did with his empathy and intense listening. Clinton said of his successor,
he doesn't know anything, he doesn't want to know anything, but he's not dumb.

Then there's an analysis of Karl Rove, the master political strategist, the most skilled of
his generation. Weisberg attributes the politicization of 9/11 to Rove. I found him
too cynical about Bush's religious faith. It's true that it's therapeutic, emphasizing
purpose and direction more than sin and hell. But just because details in the stories
change in emphasis doesn't mean the stories aren't true. That's a basic point about
the Four Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John. They remember different details
about Jesus but the stories are all true even if they don't match up in detail.

Then there's Dick Cheney of course. I found Weisberg's analysis helpful, tracing
Cheney and Rumsfeld back to the Ford administration, probably the post WWII
presidency about which we know the least. They were not neocons but nationalist
hawks, but usually fellow travelers. There's not much about Perle but a lot about
Wolfowitz. Weisberg says "he was the architect of the Iraq War, but actually the
war could have used an architect. He was more like the theologian" with all
the big picture arguments about worldwide democracy inspired by Bernard
Lewis' study of the decline of the Islamic civilization. Cheney became the
most powerful VP because he knew how to frame things so that W. was still
in charge and leading. In an odd way Cheney was humble, in contrast with
Rumsfeld. He didn't care about being famous or popular, he just wanted
to influence things. This is also a contrast with, say, Newt Gingrich, who
was very intelligent and saw himself as the preserver of civilization
from an early age, and was equally brash in public. Cheney really cared
about his ideas, whether it was the balance of the executive branch-I
don't get that one, read Article I and the importance of Congress, as
Ben Sasse said at the Kavanaugh hearings. But anyway Cheney really
believed it that the executive branch was the one losing out.

I was looking forward to the Condi Rice part, but it never really
happened. But apparently they were really tight. Cheney had
to frame things so that W. was still the leader, and Condi would
go along with Bush. Weisberg's introduction seemed to suggest
that there would be detailed analysis of Rove, Cheney and Rice,
but I didn't feel like there was enough Rice. She may have been
the most interesting of them all. She recently wrote a book
about Democracy, of course everything these days is
a reaction to the Donald. But even by 2008, she had become
more of a hardliner idealist in terms of spreading democracy
than either Cheney or Rumsfeld. As for Laura Bush, there's
not a whole lot but she considered herself a liberal even
if married to a Republican politician. When asked
about Rove and Congress's views on gay marriage
and a constitutional amendment, she said "I didn't
know Karl is an elected official". Right on TV!