The Unfeeling President

September 27, 2004 9:42 PM

The Unfeeling President by E.L. Doctorow:
This president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.
posted by Skygazer (36 comments total)

Wow.
posted by letitrain at 10:41 PM on September 27, 2004

Well, he had a little sister who died of lukimea, he "cried and cried" according to a paper he later wrote.

Perhaps his inability to deal with death comes from his crazy-fundy religious outlook. I mean, assuming he does have an lack of understanding of death. I mean, who better to psychoanaylize someone then a science fiction writer who's never met the guy.

I don't think it's understanding the guy lacks, it's empathy.
posted by delmoi at 10:59 PM on September 27, 2004

Does E. L. Doctorow really presume to see so deeply into the heart of another person? This is dangerous ground for a writer of historical fiction. It is more than reasonable to disagree with government policies, but he should remember that no living person is a character in one of his novels.
posted by coelecanth at 11:03 PM on September 27, 2004

He is the president who does not feel.

No facility for empathy -- the personality trait that allows one to act in a capacity above self-interest.

Bush is not the only one in the Adminitration with this pathology. It seems to be shared by all the members of the neo-con junta. The US is a country run by people who are essentially not human.
posted by oncogenesis at 12:14 AM on September 28, 2004

I suppose it's possible that things are as Doctorow says. And I do remember reading/seeing a comparison between the Bush I and II on the nights before the respective attacks... Bush 41 portrayed tense and drawn, unable to sleep, thinking about his own time in combat, Bush 43 relaxed, sleeping soundly, joking.

But I'm with coelecanth here: this is what someone outside thinks, and I'm not convinced that it's really Bush Revealed.
posted by weston at 12:33 AM on September 28, 2004

To everyone giving GWB the benefit of the doubt:
Have you ever heard the term "preponderance of the evidence?"

• Making jokes about WMDs that people died looking for
• Mocking death row prisoners
• Not going to a single funeral
• Hiding the coffins
• Failing to come up with a single example of a mistake he regrets
And many more...

Face it - the president has some severe pycho-social pathologies. If he had been born poor, he'd probably be cutting up prostitutes by now.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:11 AM on September 28, 2004

No: NOT "severe psycho-social pathologies." NOT "essentially not human." You disagree with his policies. You're entitled and I haven't said I'm not with you. But unless you're a qualified professional who's ACTUALLY INTERVIEWED THE SUBJECT, let's stop with the psychoanalytical horse puckey, please. It's just fucking up rational discourse.
posted by coelecanth at 1:23 AM on September 28, 2004

Did any "qualified professional" ever interview Pol Pot?
Because I disagreed with his policies, too.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:44 AM on September 28, 2004

I think the general point I was trying to make, in a less extreme way, is that Bush is so fucked up you don't need to be a "qualified professional" to see it.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:46 AM on September 28, 2004

Hey, make the point, b_f. Just leave science out of it. Doctorow doesn't know what's in his heart, Garrison Keillor doesn't know how much hair's on his back, and you don't know where he fits in the DSM-IV.
posted by coelecanth at 1:59 AM on September 28, 2004

And the idea that everyone you disagree with is Pol Pot strikes me as vaguely narcissistic.
posted by coelecanth at 2:02 AM on September 28, 2004

A good point in theory, coelecanth. But it's a serious novelist's job to imagine himself into the heart of people he doesn't know, and to guess deeply and accurately about human nature from a limited set of observations. Your point about Bush not being a character in a novel is a worthy one, but unfortunately your argument rests on art itself tending to err about what people are like. What did Shakespeare know about real Danes anyway, etcetera.

This one feels like a bullseye to me.
posted by digaman at 2:33 AM on September 28, 2004

everyone you disagree with is Pol Pot

I did not make this point at all.

1 - I disagree with Bush's policies.
2 - Bush has psychological problems.
3 - Pol Pot had psychological problems.

#1 and #2 are not necessarily related. Iwould disagree with Bush's policies, even if he showed appropriate remorse for the deaths he has caused.

I don't need to be a shrink to believe#3.

and (I implied) I don't need to be a shrink to see #2 either.

The faulty logic here is not mine.

Many people I disagree with are not Pol Pot. You, for example.
posted by bashos_frog at 2:53 AM on September 28, 2004

Having read a number of Doctorow's books (all of which before the scourge of the Bush administration), let me be the first to say, that I'd take him and anything he writes any day before I'd give this dispicable excuse for an executive branch of representative government even one iota of if-you-can't-beat-em-join-em props. Even if my life depended on it.

I remember Doctorow on a Saturday morning NPR show the Saturday after 9/11. Doctorow erupted in emotion and despair. He wanted it solved and explained. He was heatbroken beyond any befuddled belief all of us shared in those days. I remember wanting to hear him expound. But the dutiful NPR host had a schedule to keep. Doctorow had to be cut off to make way for something else.

If there is one man who can pinpoint character, it is E.L. Doctorow. The man can nearly draw you to tears as he spends pages and pages describing the thoughts and experiences of what it was to be a child in the 30's and 40's. He nails it and he always has. This is Doctorow's undeniable knack.

It is a sad day when someone in this country can defend an incurious, moronic president while demanding the most unamerican attribute of an American citizen there is: reverence for authority. And no less, from a brilliant novelist who has proven himself to be perfectly sane book after livelong book.

Doctorow's got this down. And everybody who cares knows it.
posted by crasspastor at 3:48 AM on September 28, 2004

What does EL stand for? Earnest lemming?
posted by shoos at 4:33 AM on September 28, 2004

"But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war."

WAKE UP AMERICA(NS)!
posted by acrobat at 4:40 AM on September 28, 2004

This is dangerous ground for a writer of historical fiction.

Oh, come off it. He's a novelist; generally regarded as a very good one. He writes fiction about characters. Characters, you may remember, are those things in fiction that stand in for people. Writing them well tends to require a bit of insight into humanity and the human condition.

You don't like what he has to say, don't listen; you don't find it credible, don't treat it as such. But remember that THINKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS IS HIS GODDAMN JOB. You seem to be basically saying, "Don't think about anything but New Jersey in 1895 -- everything else isn't your business."

"Dangerous ground"? Give me a freaking break. The only difference between Doctorow and most of the wankers here (self included) is that he's famous and well-off. Does that mean he's supposed to keep quiet while we rant? Just because his voice carries more weight?

Oh, well, there is one other tiny difference: He's a lot more talented. Than most of us, at least.
posted by lodurr at 4:52 AM on September 28, 2004

the most unamerican attribute of an American citizen there is: reverence for authority.

Hard to know how to take that. I think many outsiders perceive reverence for authority (at least in the form of reverence for institutions - eg Pledge of Allegiance and other manifestations in schools) as being a central trait of America - and one of the more chilling ones for its flipside, which is to provide a set of unquestionable symbols that authority figures like Bush can evoke unscrupulousy.
posted by raygirvan at 4:55 AM on September 28, 2004

I'm hardly qualified to diagnose someone's headache so I won't try to psychoanlylize, but I remember feeling very uneasy about W the night he ordered the invasion of Iraq. The report went something like "the president had a meal with his family and went to bed by 10."

I'm not sure I could sit down to dinner, much less sleep on such a night.
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:12 AM on September 28, 2004

Doctorow won me with his book "City of God."
Evolutionary Judiasm is a great concept.
It's good to see him put into words what we all are thinking.

And while we're on famous authors that I admire, Arundhati Roy has a new book out about the same subject as Doctorow's writings in the link. It's sure to be great or I'll eat someone else's hat!
posted by nofundy at 5:20 AM on September 28, 2004

I with crasspastor (and others)...this is dead on. The joking film of him looking to wmds under his couch, etc, was just one of many appalling examples, along with his mocking of Karla Fay Tucker pleading for her life on death row.

And if you want to talk signs of things to come, don't forget that way back when, little W liked to torture animals, a trait shared by many serial killers and other truly messed up people.
posted by amberglow at 5:41 AM on September 28, 2004

looking for wmds...
posted by amberglow at 5:42 AM on September 28, 2004

I was going to mention the Karla Fay Tucker stuff ("Oooh, please don't kill me!")...amberglow beat me to it.

As well as lack of empathy, that seemed to be an intentional tweaking of the standard expectation of decorum. Look at me, I'm not your run-of-the-mill politician! More than lack of empathy, it's pride in a lack of empathy.
posted by gimonca at 6:07 AM on September 28, 2004

The report went something like "the president had a meal with his family and went to bed by 10."

Insert media bullshit about "resolve" and "strong leadership" here. I was troubled by that as well. It should also be noted that while he appears to lack genuine empathy, he has been able to summon tears when the occasion requires it (Sept 12, RNC convention, etc.). Weak man, weak leader: at least some of us aren't fooled.
posted by psmealey at 6:13 AM on September 28, 2004

"The president we get is the country we get"

Nice emotion but sadly wrong about democracy. A good democracy has nothing to do with leaders. The moment you start blaming (or thanking) leaders you have failed to grasp what democracy is. The country you are determines the leaders you get and any country that needs a great leader is already lost. If you want to understand how you ended up at war with Iraq don't look to the White House. The blame lies closer to home. So do the costs.
posted by srboisvert at 6:46 AM on September 28, 2004

If you want to understand how you ended up at war with Iraq don't look to the White House. The blame lies closer to home. So do the costs.

You seriously need to explain this statement.
posted by archimago at 6:53 AM on September 28, 2004

A good democracy has nothing to do with leaders. The moment you start blaming (or thanking) leaders you have failed to grasp what democracy is.

Actually, I would say that's (at least, potentially) a moment in which you have a clear understanding of how a society works.

The quality of a "democracy" as an ideal ought have nothing to do inherently with a particular leader; but the qualities of a society as a real-world system nearly always do.
posted by lodurr at 7:13 AM on September 28, 2004

A good democracy has nothing to do with leaders

Since when was the US a "good democracy"?
posted by aramaic at 8:04 AM on September 28, 2004

Well, this is yet another editorial that you either agree with and think is spot-on or you disagree with and think is another example of baseless liberal hate.

I think it's spot on, myself, but also think it's too partisan to be a worthwhile FPP.

However, since I'm here already, I will pass along this interesting comment from my friend's mother after reading this: "Bush sounds like a man who has no sons."
posted by papercake at 8:43 AM on September 28, 2004

and you don't know where he fits in the DSM-IV.

Hey, coelecanth, somebody does.
posted by lumpenprole at 10:48 AM on September 28, 2004

I think Doctorow's right on here. But something to keep in mind is that is that W's general demeanor and approach seems reflective of qualities that Americans have come unconsciously (and dangerously) to admire. Superficial steadfast broadstrokes of resolve that doesn't bother with naunce or detail (or reality for that matter) and what Doctorow calls the ability to "dissemble emotion". Even in the face of an unmitigated failure of a war that has united our enemies and divided our friends and created more danger and suffering all in the name of that endangered nebulous catch-all: Freedom. Like a spoiled child who has acquired great things too easily, he has absolutely no idea of the true cost. If there's one question I would have for Bush it would be the following: Mr. President what is your definition of freedom? And the minute he resorted to that mind numbing empty pablum, a freakishly loud shrieking siren would go off until he explained it in his own words, as something REAL and something that he has a personal stake in, not simply a euphemism for "Power and money". Whenever I hear Bush speak and he uses the word "Freedom" I instantly substitute "Power and money" and it works perfectly everytime. The founders of this country had something more important and crucial in mind. Something more delicate and honorable and truly great. Not a catch-phrase. Yet here we have a mental midget and an emotional cripple standing on the constitution with his shit stained spiritually impoverished badass psuedo Texan self. I think we can all agree that character is developed by a persons struggles through life and the way they deal with them. What has this President ever struggled with? Has he ever had anything less then absolutely awesome wealth and opportunity? What has he struggled with?? Other then not being the ruiner of a family name and keeping up face and the wrath of an aristocratic father and the wrath of a rich boy's substance abuse problem? Do we as a nation want to underwrite and stand by while a morally incomplete and immature President learns from his mistakes?? Personally I don't think we do, because this President is apparently under the impression that he hasn't made any and due to political exigency will never make any and that is a perscription for disaster.
posted by Skygazer at 11:47 AM on September 28, 2004

the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind

amen.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:47 AM on September 28, 2004

What has he struggled with?

Well, he struggled with the fact that Dad's friends kept having to rescue him from bad business deals. And he responded by growing and learning. And so now he has his own friends to rescue him from bad business deals...
posted by lodurr at 12:55 PM on September 28, 2004

the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind

That's funny, from reading MetaFilter over the years I thought believing America ever had that "role" was itself an example of blatant and unfounded American arrogance, and that sophisticated people never held that belief -- least of all those who marched against the war.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:08 PM on September 28, 2004

the night he ordered the invasion of Iraq. The report went something like "the president had a meal with his family and went to bed by 10."

i found that odd, too, just like the 9/11 footage of him reading to children.

however, it's perfectly consistent behaviour for someone who's 'just following orders'. No responsiblity.
posted by Miles Long at 3:40 PM on September 28, 2004

just like the 9/11 footage of him reading to children

Oh don't get me started on that! I mean, who even knew exactly what was going on at that moment? I assumed someone just declared war on us and expected our leader to jump up and head for a phone booth to change into his cape and tights!

This guy's been nothing but a complete zero in the leader dept. imo.
posted by LouReedsSon at 8:18 PM on September 28, 2004