Rating: 
Summary: Ideology Rules in the Bush White House
Review: 'The President was caught in an echo chamber of his own making, cut off from everyone other than a circle around him that's tiny and getting smaller and in concert on everything ' a circle that' keeps him away from the one thing he needs most: honest, disinterested perspectives about what's real and what the hell he might do about it' (page 293). Though these are Suskind's words, they clearly express Paul O'Neil's view of the Bush White House and the frustration that propelled him to cooperate with Suskind. The circle that Suskind alludes to is a clique of arch conservatives who view policy through a narrow lens of ideology. For them, the lens is incapable of focusing in on any circumstance or any set of facts that could possibly alter their preconceived view of the world. This is particularly apparent when it comes to policy on taxes, the environment and Iraq. Suskind makes it very clear that the Bush administration was driven by ideology from the start. Case in point' no questions were asked of Paul O'Neill, the brand new Secretary of the Treasury, regarding the impact and/or benefits of tax cuts. The decision had already been made. Even today, three years later, Bush continues to push for permanent tax cuts even though we have moved from huge surpluses to huge deficits ' facts are a mere inconvenience for ideologues. In another example, Suskind points to Christie Whitman (head of the EPA) who was not consulted either in the development of policy regarding global warming or the Kyoto agreement. She presumed that Bush would abide by his campaign promises to address global warming ' had even made pronouncements to that effect after assuming office - only to be told that it was being abandoned. Global warming was no longer a real threat and there was no need to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Case closed! George Bush, nor those who cautiously encircle him, is not the least bit interested in getting input or advice from those who might disagree or offer alternatives or caution against overdoing things. Meetings are staged, comments prescreened and invitees are limited to those with similar points of view. Why address opposing viewpoints when the decision had already been made? As Suskind puts it in reference to developing policies on global warming and energy, 'Generating fresh analysis might undercut various ideological positions' (page 104). Why bother? Most frightening is Bush foreign policy. It too has been driven by pre-set positions rather than hard information on the ground. Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are clear examples. At the first meeting of the National Security Council, Bush had already decided to disengage from the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and to focus on Iraq. Again, few questions were asked. He had evidently made up his mind. Getting rid of Saddam was the priority at the first two or three NSC meetings (much to the initial surprise of at least Powell ' Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice seemed to have been in on it.) Why would this be just about the only subject discussed at the very first meetings when there was no pressing issue involving Iraq at that time? Why were so few questions asked? Only recently (1/19/04), the New York Times reported that Bush will not extend the 9/11 commission even though they will have to rush and may not finish the report. First, they stalled in getting the commission formed and now they are cutting it short. Does it look like Bush wants to examine facts in order to develop effective policy for the future or are facts inconvenient impediments to a pre-determined set of policies that they will implement come what may? As Bush said when he responded to a reporter who asked about the absence of WMD in Iraq ' 'Does it really make a difference?' Apparently not in the Bush White House!
Rating: 
Summary: Pragmatism vs. ideology. - Very interesting book
Review: A very interesting look at what happens when a seemingly pragmatic man is constrained by an administration that doesn't want real dialog or openness. This book was hard to put down, I finished it within a couple days of receiving it. O'Neill is portrayed as a white knight, but hardly perfect. O'Neill's was either a bit naive when he took the job, or vastly underestimated how full the white house was of idealogues. A great read, and scary.
Rating: 
Summary: So so
Review: The press highlighted only a few things from the book. Generally it's not as scurrilous as promoted. It should be pointed out that O'Neill said on Jan. 13 on NBC's "Today" show he was guilty of using "vivid" language during his hundreds of hours of interviews for the book. As for his quote about the president being "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people," he claimed, "If I could take it back, I would take it back." O'Neill said he "probably" would vote to re-elect Bush in November. "I don't see anyone who is better prepared or more capable," he said.
Rating:
Summary: Who Wrote That Script?
Review: Paul O'Neill was no stranger to Washington, so when he agreed to join the Bush administration, he knew that politics would intrude into policy making; however, his previous governmental experience had led him to believe that there would be a place for hard-core empirical facts, candor and principaled debate. Alas, he was wrong on this last count. G.W. Bush did not read briefs, rarely asked penetrating questions; conferences and meetings did not host an exchange of ideas, rather they were media circuses at which most of the cabinet knew their lines ahead of time. The administration's policies on a number of had already been decided when Bush took office: the invasion of Iraq was already on the table in 2000, the only question was how to go about it. Other major policy decisions had already been decided upon as well: most notably the tax cut and environmental policy. So why was the maverick O'Neill chosen as Secretary of Treasury?
There could be but one reason. It was part of the script. The administration had to provide cover for the "Mayberry Machiavellians", Karl Rove and company, as well as the neo-conservative ideologues, like Wolfowitz. O'Neill gave the administration the air of legitimacy (as did the addition of Colin Powell and Christine Todd Whitman). When O'Neill refused to tow the line, the White House got rid of him. Fortunately, the former Secretary of Treasury with Ron Susskind in this book provides us with a window into the backroom machinations of the neoconservative conspirators and
spin doctors who have brought us the largest debt in US history, a quagmire in Iraq, a dangerously negligent environmental policy, etc.
Rating:
Summary: Inside scoop on economic policy
Review: The value of this book for me was more the discussion of Paul O'Neills relationship with Alan Greenspan and how they discussed economic policy. There is probably more in this book of O'Neills working breakfasts with Greenspan than there is on O'Neills somewhat prefunctory meetings with the President. Also, a theme of bureacratic infighting with economics advisor Larry Lindsey runs through the book. Dick Cheney emerges as a Sphinx-like figure, sort of the Otto von Bismark or Catherine de Medici of the administration, setting agendas and orchestrating meetings. Also, good discussion of policy formulation regarding corporate governance and CEO accountability post-Enron. Alan Greenspan really shines in this passage. Nothing really too shocking here, but a good first view of the Bush administration based on accounts of an "insider" who really was an outsider. The book is really more than three stars, but not yet four.
Rating:
Summary: Seeing Thru the Bushs
Review: Suskind and his research have done a magnificent job of giving Americans an inside view of what a Nobel prize winner has called, "the worst government in American history." The book is based on government documents which Paul O'Neill, former cabinet member, provided, which seem undeniable in their accuracy and unforgettable in their shocking portrail of the chief executive. George W. come off as both arrogant and incompetent, while almost held hostage to the ideological bias of his "advisors." Although this not the type of book one could expect from a political scientist, it is valuable if only to illustrate what sort of leadership the present political system affords Americans. Strongly Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Where you really stand in Bush's America
Review: An excellent fly-on-the-wall scoop into the lies, deceptions, and selling out of and screwing of the American public by one of the worst administrations to ever be forcefully thrust upon this country! The Education of Paul O'Neil is a excellent tool to educate the public at large on how our current government works (or how the system doesn't work if you perfer)! A must read for anyone still interested in voting come the next election!!!! Thank Mr. Suskind!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Right on the mark for 2004
Review: This book can be seen as a timed political bombshell or, as Suskind would have it, a "work of narrative nonfiction." I say it's both -- and better yet - its central theme gets at the heart of America's current political chasm: ideology trumps common sense (and the media often just get the whole thing distorted.) O'Neill has recently said he wished he hadn't said some of the quotes in this book because they detract from the book's overall meaning. This was prompted by media pouncing on a few select passages that relate to the immediate plan to remove Iraq and O'Neill's quote about Bush being like a "blind man in a room full of deaf people." That was the initial scandal. And O'Neill has distanced himself from those tidbits amid the media spotlight, but he also defended the book's meaning. And anyone who reads past page 30 in this book will understand what O'Neill is getting at. This book is the story of a man, called by many a business genius and a "maverick," who deep-down wants to do right for his country. And he's been around in politics, he's seen the folly of single mindledly pursuing policy on ideological lines without reality checks. And that's the meaning - that blind ideology distorts reality. Early in the book, he was ready to sign off on tax cuts, but he wanted them to be 'triggered' so that if the economy's projected surplus began to shrink - so too would the tax cuts. Shift the scene to 2004: The tax cuts are in place, the surplus has vaporized - replaced by hemmoraging deficit. O'Neill is out of office - fired - and the President is calling to make the tax cuts "permanent." Meanwhile the IMF is warning about the future turmoil on the global market caused by American fiscal irresponsabilty. It was in this context that _The Price of Loyalty_ was released, and I have a great deal of respect for both O'Neill (for his bravery and level-headedness) and for Suskind (though in a lesser way, for pulling it together in short order in the fashion of a good narrative journalist). So why only 4 stars -- because the master narrative has yet to be written. Leave that to some new David Halberstam who will emmerge to write the new _Best and the Brightest_ about the Bush years. When that happens, we'll know it. For now, this is the book of the moment.
Rating:
Summary: Does "process" matter
Review: In the Price of Loyalty Ron Suskin takes the reader through the two-year tenure of Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and the mantra, "Good process leads to good policy". This book starts our with Mr. O'Neill's reluctance to return to Washington to serve another president. As a veteran of the Ford and Nixon Administration and soon to be retired ex-Alcoa CEO Mr. O'Neill contemplated returning to a town his colleague Russ Wissor called a, "...much more partisan, more hard charged." changed town. But, return he did, and on January 20th 2001 Paul O'Neill began his term as the 72nd Treasury Secretary. The reader is guided through morning power breakfasts with Allan Greenspan, memos, and numerous meetings including private meetings with the President Bush. The reader is taken through issues discussing national security, global warming, economy, AIDS, tax-cuts, spending...etc. All of which reveal what appears to be a fundamental personality clash between President Bush, his administration; and Paul O'Neill. Ron Suskin characterizes Paul O'Neill as a, "believer in the old church orthodoxy of good process" that would be viewed with wary humor in Washington and brand Paul O'Neill as a "maverick". A good process includes not only what you think but also why you think it. A good process mandates that policies flow from facts and hard deliberation, which is designed to avoid groupthink and polarization. A good process helps ensure good outcomes by avoiding policy decisions that flow from ideology instead of philosophy. A good process mandates getting hard questions from a devil's advocate, who in "The Price of Loyalty" was not allowed past the front gate of the white house. Paul O'Neill's left hand of policy clashes with what is characterized as President Bush's right hand of populism and politics. Paul O'Neill might stand on, 'Rather-right-than-reelected' while President Bush might stand behind, "Rather-reelected-than-right'. According to Paul O'Neill we find that President Bush makes some decision on "hunches" and gut feel, and when President Bush is warned about the deficit the vice president replies, "Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter". Do not matter for the next election? Do not matter in regards to federal fiscal health? The reader does not get the answer, and Paul O'Neill will not speculate. On December 31, 2002 Paul O'Neill resigned as Secretary of the Treasury. The Administration questioned his loyalty, and perhaps Paul O'Neill would agree with the administration and the late Hannah Arendt, "Total loyalty is possible only when fidelity is emptied of all concrete content, from which changes of mind might naturally arise." Yet another personality clash... The Price of Loyalty is not about the politics or policies of Washington, but rather about how we make GOOD decisions, and questions why a healthy deliberative environment present in virtually all-previous administrations is seemingly absent from this administration. I enjoyed this book immensely, and this is probably because of my affinity, curiosity, and agreement with what is referred to as "best practices" and outcome driven processes. This book has valuable information for all and would serve as a nice introduction into HOW our government, and we as individual citizens, should make decisions. Today' infotainment, sound bites, and ideologies might seem appealing because of the simplicity. As Paul O'Neill states, "Ideology is a lot easier, because you don't have to know anything or search for anything. You already know the answer to everything. It's not penetrable by facts. It's absolutism." By asking only, "what do I think", without asking, "who do I think it..." we run the risk of missing opportunities for a better tomorrow because according to Thomas Edison they are," dressed in overalls and [look] like work". "...an ideology comes out of feelings and it tend to be non-thinking. A philosophy, on the other hand, can have structured thought base. One would hope that a philosophy, which is always a work in progress, is influenced by facts. So there is a constant interplay between what do I think and why do I think it..." pg 292
Rating:
Summary: Democracy not a Empire
Review: As a 53 yr old and a former 30 year Republican who got out of the Party when Cheney was selected VP by Bush. This book exposes
a party that President Ike warned us about during his farewell address and warned the country about this vast military complex!We didnt heed the warning now the Neocons not only has stolen the party but the country!
Thanks Ron Suskind
| 
