The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill

Rating:
Summary: DISGRUNTLED EX-EMPLOYEE
Review: It is a good thing Mr. O'neill gets his frustrations out by using his typewriter. This seems to be the year for 'Bush Bashing' and many people seem to be getting on the band wagon. It is amazing to me that so many people actually believe everything they read or hear about President Bush.

Rating:
Summary: Well-written political kiss-and-tell book
Review: The Price of Loyalty is essentially the memoirs of Paul O'Neill's two years (2001-2002) as U.S. Secretary of Treasury. It reads like a real-life West Wing (the television series), in that it is more revealing about process than about policy. Being authored by a professional writer with whom O'Neill cooperated, the book is well-written and makes for a fast-paced read (a stylistic nit-pick: the words "fence" and "arc" occur far too frequently). If you're a political junkie, you will eat this up. Five stars, without question.

Mr. O'Neill is obviously smart, experienced, knowledgeable, and well-connected. His general point that during the Bush administration, decisions were too often driven by a flawed process that favored politics over sound policy (e.g. in imposing steel import tariffs) is generally acknowledged even by staunch supporters of the President. Mr. O'Neill's candor can be helpful as a political tool (e.g. in dressing down that pompous Senator Robert Byrd, a marvelous episode), although on occasion one wonders about its purpose, as when O'Neill belittles bond traders working behind "flickering screens" whose job he claims he could probably learn in a matter of weeks (the book mentions several times how Mr. O'Neill himself relies on Bloomberg screens on his desk to feed him real-time financial market information). His famous "show business" comment for some reason does not make it into the book, even though it would have been enlightening to read O'Neill's after-the-fact commentary.

Mr. O'Neill considers himself a pragmatist, a moderate for whom what matters are the right answers to problems rather than ideology. This approach may make sense intuitively, but falls short upon reflection. If ideology means principles and convictions, it is not clear this warrants poo-pooing. There is nothing wrong with having principles that are well thought out, internalized, and applied consistently. Politics is almost by definition the contest of competing ideologies, and governing is the implementation of the winner of that contest. Any perceived trade-off between competence and ideology is an illusion.

For example, Mr. O'Neill advocates the privatization of Social Security for anyone age 37 and under. This is certainly a tenable position, but only one among many, none of which are inherently the "right" answer, and the choice among which to be implemented is ultimately made at the ballot box. When the President informs Mr. O'Neill that he considers himself constrained by the kinds of Social Security reform that were part of the platform on which he ran and was elected, he offers the correct starting point of debate.

Mr. O'Neill comes across as a likable fellow, but also one beset by a measure of arrogance. He needs to be arm-twisted into accepting a government position, and nothing suggests he considers being asked to serve the President an honor. He does not want to be seen as merely "one bird in the nest", and ends up playing a role in non-Treasury policies ranging from education to the environment to foreign aid, traveling to Africa on the initiative of Bono, a celebrity, rather than the President, his boss (Mr. O'Neill might actually make a highly effective successor to James Wolfensohn at the World Bank).

It is easy to criticize policy making with the benefit of hindsight. E.g., O'Neill questions the process by which the decision to invade Iraq was made (too much how, not enough why), and by implication that decision. But as a participant in the policy making process, he should have spoken out at the time, rather than afterwards in a kiss-and-tell book in the tradition of, say, David Stockman, Donald Regan, and Dick Morris. Colin Powell, the former secretary of state and a fellow moderate, was arguably hung out to dry even more visibly than Mr. O'Neill, but it is difficult to envision Mr. Powell writing such a book.

Thus, although Mr. O'Neill faults president Bush for prizing loyalty, he himself represents exhibit A as to why that is so. Note to future presidents: when assembling your staff and cabinet, don't just pick people who are smart, experienced, knowledgeable, and well-connected. Make sure they are on board as well philosophically regarding the policies you were elected to implement.


Rating:
Summary: A Frank Assessment of the Bush Administration
Review: In a strikingly chilling narrative culled from around 19,000 documents and interviews, Suskind removes the American media-issued rose colored glasses and paints quite an unflattering image of the Bush administration.

The book takes through different high level meetings as if we're perched on former Treasury Secretary O'Neill's shoulders as they discuss the direction of both America's domestic and foreign policy. From there, the reader gets an idea as to how the current administration really decides on critical issues where ideology constantly triumphs time and again over rational thought. In those meetings at least that O'Neill attended, only the how's are discussed to achieve the goal. Apparently, the decision making is done in higher level meetings in which O'Neill is never invited.

Suskind's story is quite convincing as it doesn't resort to absurd Bush-Saudi family connections but instead provides cold, hard facts. Furthermore, the primary source is from the Republican Party itself who may even have voted for W. in 2004! One only has to see the events unfold today to be convinced that these are the results of the policies discussed in those meetings - the much ballyhooed American withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty, tax cuts, the Iraq War and now privatization of Social Security.

Suskind's Bush is surprisingly not the rambunctious type as described in other books but is mysteriously detached, aloof, almost Manchurian. Makes you wonder who is pulling this President's strings.

Rating:
Summary: Just the Tip of the Iceberg
Review: I was not surprised by what I read. Anyone paying attention knows that this administration is scary. The first four years have been devastating, and by all accounts the next four are going to be even worse. Like Hitler - Bush eliminates all who do not fall in line. Is this a democracy? How can we be trying to spread democracy elsewhere and destroy it in our own country? There is every reason to believe that this account is accurate, but that it is just the tip of the Iceberg.

Rating:
Summary: Paying the price for four more years
Review: This is the first political kiss-and-tell book that I've read. I have to admit, it was gripping, even though, as a political blog junkie, I had heard about most of the juicy parts secondhand. I'm not naive enough to believe that all books of this type are going to be of this same quality. Collaborating with Suskind, an author with a clear purpose in his mind, probably did wonders for making sure that the theme -- conflicts between styles of "loyalty" -- was communicated precisely.

What Suskind brings to the table, a thriller author's sensibility for ratcheting up suspense, even though the conclusion is known. The months leading up to O'Neill's firing are gutburners. Suskind conveys the devastating implications of a presidential nickname change.

I finished this book about three days before the election. I didn't need my mind changed, and I don't think it was going to alter the political landscape in any serious way. But it sure opened up an interesting view into internal White House political machinations. Watching the post-election cabinet reshuffling has been breathtaking. To think that George Will suggested that Greenspan would be willing to replace John Snow in his buddy O'Neill's old job. Right ...

Rating:
Summary: a quick review of an excellent work.
Review: ron suskind and the admirable mr. o'neill team up to deliver a fantastic work of narrative non-fiction that is uniquely telling of the bush 43 administration's inner workings in the early years.

a disturbing account of high-level government run on ideology and loyalty as defined by unquestioned support. o'neill, the un-reluctant and frank pragamatist, ventures to define loyalty as a lifetime duty to the truth no matter what. among the important issues raised are those of corporate governance, the early developments of a strategy for iraq, and fiscal prudence (or lack thereof). we clearly see the tightly-knit admin turn away blindly when given a true, viable opportunity to reform social security.

this is another important book americans either didn't read or didn't understand.


Rating:
Summary: Understanding the Bush White House
Review:
This is an inside look at the Bush White House which the radical right will hate, because it reveals the ugly truth about this administration. Written in clear, lucid tones by Pulitzer Prize winner Ron Suskind, it details the dangerous ideologue that is this president. Paul O'Neill did indeed pay a high price for his loyalty -- he was fired for his loyalty to truth, reason, and common sense.

No novice, O'Neill was, before becoming Secretary of the Treasury, an official for seven years at the Office of Management & Budget, an aide to Presidents Nixon and Ford, and an executive at International Paper Company. Finally,in his 13
years at Alcoa, he was responsible for a historic turnaround from $1.1 million in earnings in 1987 to $1.5 Billion dollars in 2000, a year when Alcoa, the world's largest aluminum producer, was the best performing stock on the NYSE.

So you would think Bush would listen to his advice, and that of O'Neill's good friend, Alan Greenspan. Uh uh. O'Neil recites meeting after meeting talking to the president, whose face alternately revealed utter disinterest, befuddlement or both. Bush rarely asked a question, O'Neill suspects it was because the president did not want to appear ignorant. Two of the most startling meetings epitomize this administration. First, at the very first meeting of the National Security Council, 10 DAYS after the inauguration, the topic was the possibility of invading Iraq. Second,O'Neill dared to speak out against the reckless trillion-dollar tax cuts for the wealthy, arguing (rightly) they would increase the deficit enormously and dangerously. Cheney cut him off: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he intoned to O'Neill's astonishment. "We won the midterms. This is our due." As O'Neill and Greenspan agree, it took two decades to pay off the Reagan deficits.

But Bush was not to be outdone by Reagan -- a reckless plunge into war in Iraq with no real effort at diplomacy, no exit strategy and no plan for the peace. And millions for the rich, with stagnating wages and job outsourcing for the middle class.

The book details innumerable sordid court intrigues -- a knife here, a firing there (including O'Neill's own),a plethora of broken campaign promises ("we will be humble abroad"; "we will not engage in nation-building"; "we will work on a bipartisan basis"; "we will safeguard the environment" -- a broken promise leading to EPA Director Christine Todd Whitman's resignation). It is loaded with litte-known facts involving the likes of Greenspan, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Whitman, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. A worthy, fast read almost for those inside tidbits alone.

The true Bush legacy, meticulously documented by O'Neill (a fanatic for taking accurate notes),and with Suskind's straightforward prose, is unsettling reading, but essential for all common sense Americans, and a tribute to a courageous man who dared to tell the truth about this administration.



Rating:
Summary: Insider O'Neill echoes Senator Byrd
Review: Since Paul O'Neill was an "insider" with Bush 43's team his observations are empirical proof that this administration had Iraq on its agenda before 9/11. It was brought up in the first NSC meeting ten days after Bush 43 took office. It dovetails neatly with Senator Byrd's speech evoking the fairy tale "The Emperor Has No Clothes" crtical of the president's policies of secrecy and maybe deception. Having said that, it's a good read to see how the personalities interact in the center of gravity of American politics. The writer puts forth O'neill's notes in a coherent format. I might be wrong but I think it was unbiased and allowed me, the reader, to draw my own conclusions. I expected earth-shattering revelations here but there is nothing that the public has not already heard via the public media. What comes across in this book is that, to me anyway, O'Neill was like a General Patton. That is, he spoke to the press what was on his mind at the time which may not have been on the same page with the president or his inner circle of policy-makers. Everybody in government or private business knows that, right or wrong, only one consistent theme can emanate from the front office. Disagreements get hashed out in boardrooms but public statments must be one consistent voice. To do otherwise is counter-productive and resignations are honorable if you disagree. O"Neill was honorable to submit his resignation.

Rating:
Summary: An insider view of the Bush White House
Review: Michael Moore in his Oscar speech declared that as "the Pope and the Dixie Chicks" were against George W Bush, his time was up. A more fitting example would probably have been to use Paul O'Neill. When rich, conservative CEO's of major industrial corporations speak out against a Republican president, something is amiss.

Not that this is a polemical, liberal-minded rant against a right-wing president, far from it. O'Neill, the former CEO of giant aluminium corporation Alcoa, is an unlikely critic of "Bush 43". He is a moderate conservative; a strict adherent of balanced budgets and fiscal austerity, prone to supply-side economic remedies, the abolition of corporate tax is a pet dream. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are old pals from the days when O'Neill served presidents Nixon, Ford and Bush the elder in various capacities.

After Bush's election he is tapped up by Cheney for Treasury Secretary and heads into the administration somewhat unaware as to the mindset of the new president. His prior government experiences frame his approach to the job. Decisions should only be taken after careful analysis and reasoning. The welfare of the country should be the priority. Opposing views should not be frozen out and are indeed necessary is assessing the efficacy of the decisions being made. He cites his meetings with President Clinton as an example of how opposing political viewpoints should be taken on board.

Through painful experience he soon learns the real nature of this administration. Bush himself appears uninformed and inexperienced. Worse, he seems uninterested in addressing these deficiencies. Decisions are not made on the basis of sound analysis but on political expediency. A cabal of right-wing ideologues, Cheney, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and so on, control policy and the direction of the White House. Cabinet meetings appear scripted, lack any real debate and serve merely as a rubber stamp for preordained courses of action. O'Neill realises people like himself and Colin Powell have been chosen for the cabinet purely as cover, to give the administration a more moderate, centrist hue. His experience on global warming early on sets the trend. Without any clear direction from Bush, O'Neill and EPA chief Christie Whitman assume he means to keep his election promises and make substantive efforts to counter global warming. They are soon thrown off-guard by Bush's U-turn on the issue, which O'Neill realises has been formulated within the presidents inner circle and without proper debate or consultation. To add insult to injury, Cheney is appointed to deal with the energy issue and convenes a committee devoid of any environmentalist voices. Not one to toe the party line, O'Neill soon repeatedly strays "off message" on this and other issues and after two years is forced out.

Thus he gives us this insider's view of Bush's White House, written with the aid of 19,000 documents that he had amassed over his two years there. Could the result be viewed as a vindictive hatchet-job against a former employer and therefore be dismissed? I think unlikely, the book appears to be too sober and unsensationalist to make you doubt its veracity. Furthermore, those in doubt should take close note of the passages dealing with Bush's tax cut proposals. O'Neill is against them, feeling the federal budget cannot afford them at that time and that they won't have a sufficient palliative effect on the economy, which in any case he believes is not in a state bad enough to need them. However, he is not against supply-side tax cuts per se, just these proposals at this moment in time. In other words, I don't believe it's so much the neo-con ideology that O'Neill is against as the fact that under this administration, this ideology is allowed to drive policy on its own without being tempered by more traditional conservative pragmatism.

Nonetheless, there are still a few incidents in this book which will provide suitable ammunition for democrats, liberals and Bush-haters alike. The one-on-one meetings with the president usually consist of O'Neill delivering a monologue to the accompaniment of blank stares or absent nods from Bush. There is the President's bullying behaviour, when he addresses O'Neill by nicknames like "Pablo" or "Big-O", or when he publicly demeans him during an economic conference. Finally there is the issue of Iraq, which O'Neill notes was equally driven by political ideology and not hard evidence or debate. In the earliest weeks of the administration there was the now well-known cabinet meeting where regime change is discussed. O'Neill recounts a memorable scene where a blow-up satellite photograph of a supposed chemical weapons plant is enthusiastically shown to the cabinet as compelling evidence of Iraq's threat to the world, and realises all they are actually seeing is a picture of a building with trucks parked outside.

Reading this book and O'Neill's criticisms, I am reminded that some similar accusations are being made against Tony Blair's government in the UK, i.e. that policy is tightly controlled by the Prime Minister and a small inner-circle, that issues are made on the basis of political expediency and that the cabinet is persistently being marginalised. O'Neill pointedly remarks that Bush has essentially hood-winked the American electorate, campaigning as a moderate and then pursuing a far right-wing doctrine. Blair and Labour were elected as an antidote to conservatism by a left-wing/moderate-centrist coalition. The Blair government however has pursued domestic and foreign policies which are not too far removed from their Conservative predecessors. Has image, media spin and the drive towards third-way politics reached an apotheosis with Bush and Blair? Has ideology replaced pragmatism in a desire to secure short term election results at the expense of the long term futures of nation states? This book will certainly make you believe so.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting account
Review: OK, right wingers. Stop with all the hate filled reviews. There are a good majority of you who accuse the left of being hateful. While sometimes true, stooping to this level makes you no better. Paul O'Neill is not a disgruntled ex-employee trying to get back at Bush by spreading lies to unseat him. If any of you who wrote something to that effect bothered to do some research, you would see that Mr. O'Neill still plans to vote for Bush in '04, and wishes him well. He just felt that this administration has been too secretive at times. This is a valid argument. Bush has given the least press conferences of any President since the advent of the media. I would look at this book as more of a conservative's cry for the current administration to change some of its ways than as a leftist's cry for Bush's removal. Seriously, if you cannot find some fault in this administration, you are too conservative for your own good. I respect Mr. O'Neill for being able to own up to problems he sees with someone he supports. Everyone else should take notice.