Bob Woodward's new book paints the president as a resolute leader so in awe of his own conviction and resolution that he can't adapt to new realities, and thus has been unable to learn from the mistakes in Iraq. That's in stark contrast to Bob Woodward's last book, which painted Bush as a resolute leader whose in awe of his own conviction and resolution was perfectly suited to the new, post-9/11 reality. Matt asks:
Why were the earlier books so different? Did he somehow not notice this stuff before? It's a serious problem for the most prominent people in the journalism world to be merely lagging indicators, praising leaders when they're popular and then pointing out that, in fact, they suck only after a whole series of disasters discredit them.
Nah, he noticed all this stuff before. And he mentioned it all. His last book was perfectly explanatory. It's merely that then, Bob Woodward thought pigheadedness was a virtue, now it's a vice. The problem is that Woodward is not what folks might call an analyst. Here's Nora Ephron, who was married to his partner Bernstein, explaining Woodward's technique:
Bob has always had trouble seeing the forest for the trees. That's why people love to talk to him; he almost never puts the pieces together in a way that hurts his sources. And that's also why he has so much access: his sources can count on him to convey their version of events. When Bob says that when he was first told about Valerie Plame, he [just] didn't think it was important.
Woodward knows what's going on, but not what to think of it. He's a safe vessel for hall-of-power confessionals precisely because he doesn't put the pieces together in any sort of innovative and damning way. But without that analytical approach, Woodward simply colors his reporting with whatever crayons everyone else is using. If Bush is atop the world, Woodward's interviews show why. If he ain't, the very same interviews will shed light on that, too. What's impressive about the two Woodward books isn't how different they are, but how similar. The reporting hasn't much changed, it's the conventional wisdom that's shifted and, thus, Woodward's adjectives.
And, so far as political experts being nothing but lagging indicators, it's really much, much worse than that. Try incorrect indicators.
