Is Bush a walking psychological mess or what?

Adding to the somewhat bizarro-world atmosphere, outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday urged Bush to enter into one-on-one talks with Kim Jong-il, while the president argued for sticking with a more multilateral approach. Bush's rhetoric notwithstanding, the WP makes it clear in an inside piece that the U.S. has in the past been willing to negotiate with North Korea directly. But it seems that Bush is resisting direct talks now, as he has for years, because they are exactly the outcome Kim wants (as the NYT points out in this news analysis), and so initiating them would be tantamount to rewarding North Korea for its nuclear test.

Let's leave aside, for the moment, the complex regional and diplomatic issues involved and simply look at the two players. Kim Jong Il is often portrayed as a little boy who demands attention. He throws tantrums on the world stage on a regular basis including making large explosions. And I wouldn't dispute that characterization at all.

But what about Bush?

Bush policy generally seems to be based on two basic principles. One is pure opposition: if "they" (the enemy de jour) say up, Bush says down. I'm regularly reminded of the story of the young adult Bush who became angry at momma Bush one day. When Babs got into her car with a friend to drive away from the scene, Bush got on his bicycle and rode at the slowest pace possible (without walking his bike) in front of mommas car to prevent her from going anywhere fast. The guy is so purely oppositional that when he checks his gut, which he says he does alot, he apparently often hears a small (about 2 years old) tantrumed voice say "no!". Thus, the more advisors suggest Iraq is lost, Bush's response is we're winning! I'm sure you can come up with a gazillion examples of your own. Aside from the obvious disasterous consequences of this type of decision process being used by the leader of the free world, there is another danger here. Someone who is oppositional is just as easily controlled as someone who agrees all the time. By simply understanding Bush's oppositional nature, advisors can easily "paradox" him into doing their bidding.

The other element that defines Bush's policy is closely related to the first. Bush has some sort of hard-on for anything Clinton. I suspect it's a kind of jealousy and insecurity, the kind that causes Bush to demean everyone he meets with the frat boy nickname thing. If Clinton did this, Bush will do that. Clinton = bad so Bush must do the opposite to do good.

Finally there's Congress. Bush has quite successfully controlled the Republican leadership from day one. Given the rudimentary elements of Bush's personality and behavior, does his intimidation of Congress give you some insight to their functioning?

Bush's policies being based on such lizard brain thinking (there's that term again!) does not work well, especially when dealing with leaders who are operating on a somewhat equal level, i.e. Kim Jong Il. And unfortunately, these children fighting are not just going to hurt themselves.