Suskind describes more clearly than many others have the way that Bush and his cronies operate and think:
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.But that isn't what really scares me - I already knew that, and it doesn't matter what a small group of people think, even if they have power - unless they have a lot of popular support. So this is what really scares me:
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.This scares me for two reasons. One: The extent to which people who are against Bush think that simply pointing out things he does that they don't approve of will change the minds of people who support him or are undecided. So many of such people are talking a language that only other members of their community will understand. Two: I guess I thought that most of the people in my country had the same ultimate goal - a better life for everyone - and only disagreed with the specifics of how to get there. But if many people in my country have the goal of being part of an empire where they try to remake the world in their own image...well, then we're on a road that might have lots more hatred, violence, and bloodshed than I imagined.
I wish I knew how to respond to this, other than talking about it.