Bush: "I assume I'm right"

That's what GW Bush said to the Wall Street Journal in his first interview with a newspaper since the election (subscriptions is required, and my online subscription has come to an end), and it pretty much sums up his governing style...and his family's genetic predispositions.

While vigorous in describing his domestic agenda, Mr. Bush was at his most animated when discussing prospects for bringing democracy to the Middle East, an idea he said is being propelled forward by the weekend balloting among Palestinians and the Iraqi elections scheduled for Jan. 30. After the formal 30-minute interview ended, Mr. Bush paused while escorting reporters out of the Oval Office to explain at length his relish at joining what he sees as a historic effort at transformation, amid widespread skepticism about prospects for success among Western governments and even some of his fellow Republicans.

"I understand there are many who say, 'Bush is wrong,'" the president said, flanked by incoming National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and other senior aides. "I assume I'm right."

Now, presidents should have confidence of their convictions; for all their faults Reagan and Clinton had them.

Bush on the other hand, has arrogance of his convictions. He "assumes" he's "right" and isn't really very interested in other views (a trait common among people who refer to themselves in the third person).

It explains his (and his father's, who was equally, though less obviously, arrogant) inability to express himself coherently or cogently. Bush pere and fils are certain they're right, so they don't have to go through the mental gymnastics of determining the correctness of their position -- a process that would benefit their ability to express that position. It explains both of their exhibitions of annoyance when criticized or debated. Since they know they're right, how dare anyone take a different view.

It is an arrogance that comes of their New England patricians' sense of entitlement that Bush hides with his ridiculous twang (in fact, like so many things from Texas, dubya has taken that sense of entitlement and blown it out to Texas-sized proportions). They were born to rule, so it is just and proper that they do so. Kerry was hung with the label, but he was driven to be president, he didn't think it was his due, as has certainly been the case with Bush senior (a failed politician who couldn't get himself elected to dog catcher, but remained a loyal party apparatchik for two decades and was vaulted into the Oval Office off Reagan's less than enthusiastic shoulders) or Junior (an outright failure in just about every endeavor he tried). Despite the lack of...shall we say, sparkle...in their respective pre-presidential VCs, they never had or have any doubts about the justness of their proscribed paths to "greatness."

It is why dubya can eke out a two-percentage point win over a "Massachusetts libural" and call it a Man Date.

And for George II, his arrogance of convictions are dangerous because -- as with so many arrogant men -- those convictions are build upon the weakest of structural and intellectual supports. He "knows" he's right, but we pay the price if he's wrong.