Is this the real face of our American president? Not a stoic and strong, completely reborn and brave leader, but rather a man out of touch with the very nation he leads, a "fraternity goof" as a recent Time magazine article called him. No, this isn't necessarily new knowledge that George W. Bush is neither a brainiac or intellectual impresario, no such epiphany here, but what two new documentaries about the President's life reveal in intimate detail is that this man is so far flung from what the majority of American's call reality that he exists in his own simplistic world, where gourmet is peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and Chuck Norris deserves an Oscar.
The first and most revealing of the forthcoming chronicles on Bush is by New York Times reporter Frank Bruni. Aptly titled Ambling into History, the book reveals the small but quirky details of the President's character and personality. The excerpts that have been released, primarily in an article for the New York Daily News, paint Bush in almost a child-like light. Some highlights include Bush's affinity for Cheez Doodles, Doritos, and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches over 'adult' foods like sushi. He also had no clue who Leonardo DiCaprio was, even though his movie Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time; he claims Chuck Norris as his favorite actor. Even more disturbing is Bush's assertation of Cats as a theatrical masterpiece, and his belief that Sex in the City was "an inquiry into his erotic and geographic whereabouts."
Is Bush a great actor, a man who can trick an entire nation into thinking that he is in step with the people over which he presides? Do we want a president who instead of increasing his knowledge on world affairs, imitates a fictional character bent on global domination; according to Bruni, Bush had an affinity for pretending to be Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. Of course, Sept. 11 did perhaps give Bush a wake-up call that the presidency isn't a game of make believe, but rather a slightly serious job that entails holding the fate of millions if not billions in his hand. But let's remember, this is a man whose first legitimate and successful job came when he was into his 40s as governor of the second largest state in the union, yet even then the breadth of his power was minimal at most. Bottom line: The man with his finger on the nuclear arsenal doesn't know who Leonardo DiCaprio is, has the intellectual desire of a ten year old, before Sept. 11 was more fascinated by Ben and Jerry's than bin Laden, and has the attention span of a chimpanzee at the Chiquita Banana factory. Basically, your average American, but with a marginally more important job than working the pick-up window at McDonalds.
The other reality mocumentry depicts Bush during the 2000 campaign, revealing the behind the scenes candidate as he weaves his way towards Commander-in-Chief. Maybe more visually revealing than Bruni's book, Alexandra Pelosi's yet unnamed film could further the image of Bush as a dubious and irreverent prankster, starkly in contrast to his new image as tough on terrorism, serious and stoic, and create brand new fodder for the likes of Jay Leno and David Letterman.
These two releases will have the effect of humanizing a now deified Bush, grounding him back to the Earth where he belongs. Sure he has handled himself with surprising control and clairvoyance since Sept. 11, but something needs to give. Finally from a president who shrouds his personal life in such mystery, a peek into the true nature of this man turned myth.
What are we, President Bush's loyal subjects, to take from the book and the video? It's too early to tell as of now, but early speculation tends to support the notion that the debate over the president's true capacity to handle the office will arise once more. As humorous as all this seems, we must remember who Bush is and the power he yields. Should the president exemplify an innocent, goofy child, or an educated and aware man?
Which gets me to my next point: comparing Bill Clinton to Bush. Yes, they are two very different beings, an inteligencia versus a veritable ignoramus. But at heart, they are both juveniles. Bush, as we have seen, has youthful tendencies on personality, culinary tastes, intellect, and vocabulary. Clinton, on the other hand, still has "youthful indiscretions" well into his 50s. The dichotomy that has evolved is which type of child is preferential to have in the White House: one who knows nothing but behaves, or a know-it-all who acts before thinking, often making blatant personal mistakes. A classic dilemma indeed and it's perplexing to think which is more beneficial for our nation. If America were a company, we would want the most experienced, intelligent, and cost effective man for CEO. Clinton fits this persona, and created huge profit margins during the '90s. The drawback of course is that he would bring scandal to the company, possibly hurting business due to bad press and tainting the role of the CEO as a leader for the rest of the employees.
Then Bush comes along, with virtually no experience or knowledge of the company which he runs, but an uncanny ability to both adapt accompanied with an affable simple personality that appeals to both the consumers and employees. Under Bush, of course, the company falters, profits decrease and the corporation teeters in deficit, but there is no sexual scandal - as far as Enron goes, we'll see how that develops - which leaves the company in better moral standing. The stockholders, the American people, dismay Clinton's personal life but don't care because they got more cash in their pockets. Bush would immediately be fired for dragging the business into financial ruin, deficits spending, red ink; nobody would care if he were a nice guy free from scandal
Basically, the analysis of the situation boils down to one quote by the great James Carville: "In the Clinton administration we worried the president would open his zipper. In the Bush administration, they worry the president will open his mouth." So which would you prefer, an intellectual idiot or a sexual idiot. That's for the American people to decide, but if I had my choice, I'd take the man who couldn't keep his belt on but could recite with accuracy the economic effects of AIDS in Africa over a man who actually said, "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease," but can control himself in public office.
Adam Blickstein is a sophomore majoring in political science.
