Book Review: A Tragic Legacy

Here we go with my first book review. I just finished reading A Tragic Legacy: how a good vs. evil mentality destroyed the Bush presidency, by Glenn Greenwald. Last summer I read Greenwald's first book How Would a Patriot Act? and I read his blog on salon.com religiously so I pretty much knew what to expect. Greenwald is a former constitutional law attorney, so much of his writing focuses on civil liberties issues and he is a strident critic of much of the Bush administration's agenda of maximizing the power of the federal government. It's hard to tell where he falls on the political spectrum (in a good way). He comes across to me as someone who is driven more by rational thought and "reality based" logic than someone looking to push a certain ideology. His devotion to the constitution and the rule of law combined with intense disdain for neo-"conservatism" have made him one of my favorite writers. A Tragic Legacy is divided into 6 chapters. Chapter one describes just how unpopular the president has become. Chapter two examines the principles that drive President Bush, his polarized view of the world, and the view of himself as a man of destiny. Chapter 3 outlines Bush's conduct in the run up to and handling of the war in Iraq. Chapter 4 examines the drumbeat for a showdown with Iran. Chapter 5 outlines a lot of the ways in which the Bush/Cheney view of the constitution bares little resemblance to the document as it is written (this is kind of a running theme throughout the book, as well as insights into what makes neocons tick.) And then in the conclusion he once again talks about the Bush legacy (think Lyndon Johnson, but without the domestic achievements). So here are a few snippets that stuck out to me:

-Part of the first section details how many conservatives have tried to distance themselves from Bush, but Greenwald points out that this began only after the president's approval ratings plummeted to Johnson-during-'Nam levels and that most of them were trying to re-write the history of their own involvement.

-A telling piece of polling data: In a February '05 poll asking people to describe Bush in one word, the top response was "honest" with 38%. 13 months later the top answer was incompetent (29%), and honest had dropped into 6th place, tied with the word liar (14%) and just behind the epithet idiot (17%) Ouch! The '07 results were even worse with incompetent and idiot making five point gains.

-He spends a good deal of time examining the claims by those on the right that Bush was never a conservative at all. This is followed by an interesting contrast of conservatism as it exists in theory versus what is actually practiced by those who claim to adhere to it. The conservatives in question never hesitated to claim Bush as one of their own when he was popular. He also states that: ""conservatism"- while definable on a theoretical plane- has come to have no practical meaning in this country other than a quest for ever-expanding government power for its own sake." He drives this point home by pointing out how much domestic discretionary spending increased under Reagan (a little over 11%) and W (almost 36%).
-Chapter 2 lays out the case of Bush as a man who, by his own admission, relies on his "gut" rather than careful analysis. At one point just after the Iraq war began when asked by Senator Biden why he was so confident about the prospects given how many variables existed, Bush put his hand on Biden's shoulder and responded "my instincts, my instincts".
- Greenwald does not spare the media or the "opposition" party who failed to do their jobs of scrutinizing the case being made during the prelude to the war in Iraq or during the occupation itself.
-He also makes the case that a moralistic vision is a much stronger driving force for president Bush than geopolitical considerations in handling foreign policy. To quote one Arab diplomat: "The U.S. has been Iran's best friend. You have eliminated its enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. You have even reduced yourselves as a threat to Iran because you have wasted so much blood and treasure in Iraq."
-He spends a large portion of the book making the case against a potential war with Iran, and examining the neo-conservative obsession with comparing anyone who opposes any war to Neville Chamberlain. He even mentions how many of these same groups ran ads during the 80's comparing Reagan to Chamberlain because he negotiated with the USSR, rather than start World War III.
-But by far the point made most often in the book is how the administration has routinely violated the constitution and eroded freedom in the name of safety. The passage I liked best in the entire book states: "The premise of America is and always has been imposing limitations on government power even if it means accepting an increased risk of death as a result."[emphasis in original] Perfect safety is the illusion driving Bush. For example I might be safer from serial killers if the police could randomly round up and investigate anyone they wished or search anywhere without a warrant. Does opposing that make me "pro-murderer"?
-Overall it was a good read and I would recommend it to anyone interested in preserving the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. (I would also recommend Greenwald's other book: How Would a Patriot Act?)