David Brooks writes:
>Many will doubt this, but Bush is a smart and compelling presence in person, and only the whispering voice of Leo Tolstoy holds one back.
>Tolstoy had a very different theory of history. Tolstoy believed great leaders are puffed-up popinjays. They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations — from the bottom up.
>According to this view, societies are infinitely complex. They can’t be understood or directed by a group of politicians in the White House or the Green Zone. Societies move and breathe on their own, through the jostling of mentalities and habits. Politics is a thin crust on the surface of culture. Political leaders can only play a tiny role in transforming a people, especially when the integral fabric of society has dissolved.
>If Bush’s theory of history is correct, the right security plan can lead to safety, the right political compromises to stability. But if Tolstoy is right, then the future of Iraq is beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks and the understanding of any chief executive.
Again, not so much a false dichotomy as false dichotomizing: considering only two very different possibilities as exhaustive without the further claim that one is evidently false or ridiculous.
I doubt that Bush actually has a theory of history. Even if he does, I’ve never heard him discuss it, and there’s little evidence that his policy is informed by it (unless of course his theory denies historical facts, or facts in general). However, I thinks its safe to say that whatever, if any, theory of history that Bush propounds would be opposed to Tolstoy’s theory, else why would any politico in power make any decisions whatsoever. There would be no point.
And “popinjay”? Does Brooks want us to dislike him more than we already do?
“They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations — from the bottom up.”
Uhhh, doesn’t that constitution thingy say something about government of the people, by the people? Ya know, elections and all that? Sounds pretty bottom up to me.
Oh, and popinjay? Bush is much more of a cockrobin if you ask me.