It hit me the other day during a phone call to my uncle in Berlin. We were talking – my family consists to an unhealthy degree of history buffs – about some restoration projects going on in Germany at the moment; the magnificent Frauenkirche (that's "The Women's Church"), a Baroque marvel in Dresden destroyed in the war, for example, has just been restored.

"And you probably do not know this in New York, but the Stadtschloss here in Berlin is also going to be rebuilt."

The Stadtschloss or City Palace was a huge edifice in central Berlin, roughly comparable in centrality to the Louvre in Paris. Have a look, here. It was destroyed after the war by East German communists, who sought to erase the miseries and madness of the last century by applying dynamite to its architectural symbols.

It was also the chief residence of the Kaiser, the man who single-handedly plunged Europe into the scourging of the Great War through a combination of personal character defects, the elevation of loyal cronies over experts, unhinged paranoia, a sense of divine mission, unrestrained militarism, a complete lack of checks and balances on his régime, contempt for the political opposition and an astounding tone-deafness in international affairs.

What hit me was this: American liberals who compare Bush to Hitler are looking at the wrong German autocrat.

It's easy to hold George Bush in withering contempt, and many Progressives do, pointing to his public incoherence, laughable cronies, pathological and calculated dishonesty, ludicrous policies, and many other shortcomings besides. The problem with that view, in my mind, is that it ignores the obvious: that George Bush is the most powerful chief executive in living memory, perhaps ever. The comparison with an absolute monarch like Kaiser William II falls short on several levels, but it is far more apt than would have been a similar attempt with any of Bush's (elected) predecessors. Historians like Sean Wilentz - here in Rolling Stone - make the argument that Bush is destined for obloquy by pointing only to American history. I think we should look to Europe instead, because the magnitude of Bush's failure knows no precedent in this country.

George Bush owes his position to his belonging to a political dynasty; had he not had access to the vast network created by his father, it would never have occurred to anyone that this man should be governor, let alone President. Like the Kaiser from the House of Hohenzollern, George Bush is a prince, with all that implies.

When the Kaiser acceded to the throne in 1888, he had his Bismarck guiding the ship of state; Bush was similarly surrounded by the O'Neills, Powells and Scowcrofts of the world. Bismarck was dropped; so were the eminences grises that surrounded Bush. Both men, being unused to and unwilling to tolerate disagreement, proceeded to surround themselves with a tight circle of toadies. The effect was immediate and disastrous; what the Bush administration did to our organs of domestic governance, such as FEMA and the CIA, looks eerily like the effect of Bismarck's departure on Germany's system of carefully balanced alliances.

Both men managed to needlessly turn international affection for their countries into undisguised contempt. The Kaiser was a grandson of Queen Victoria, an honorary admiral of the Royal Navy, and a cousin to both the last czar and King George V; his country was viewed as a repository of culture and enlightenment. By 1914, when the lights across Europe went out, that had changed into a deserved reputation, for Germany, as the seat of a dangerous and heedless belligerence. Similarly, Bush has taken the accumulated good will of decades, reinforced by the sympathy the world felt for this country post-9/11, and turned it into fear and unease. To the rest of the world, America has gone mad.

The most unpleasant phenomenon nurtured in pre-war Berlin was a kind of shrill, flag-waving nationalism, inflamed from on high and fanned by a cowering press corps. There was much singing of patriotic songs and talk of a national mission to civilize the world. Today, the songs are different, at least mostly; "My country 'tis of thee" has the same melody as "Heil dir im Siegerkranz".

Both men show an uncanny ability to misjudge the effects of their actions. The Kaiser was genuinely surprised when Britain declared war after the invasion of Belgium in 1914, even though the British had fought for centuries to keep the channel ports opposite their own shore out of the hands of other great powers, and were signatories to the treaty that guaranteed Belgian neutrality. In much the same way, Bush was blindsided by the immediate revolt of his right flank over Harriet Miers and, these days, over what is perceived as amnesty for illegal immigrants. This even though no political analyst was surprised by either reaction.

William II was born and lived in a time when the concept of divine right still carried some credence, most of all in his own mind. George Bush has updated the idea and adapted it to his own circumstances; perhaps dynasties breed this belief. Answering to God, however, has distinct drawbacks for governance; God tends to agree with people to a frightening degree the more misguided they are.

George Bush has caused consternation and unease abroad with his rhetoric – "axis of evil" – and his actions. Bush has referred to China as an "adversary", derided NATO and the UN, renounced international treaties, and made a point of "going it alone". The Kaiser publicly renounced the Bismarckian alliance with Russia, made a point of humiliating France and Britain, and forever damaged his country's reputation by exhorting a German force sent to quash the Chinese Boxer rebellion to act "like Huns". It's hard not to think of "bring it on".

The Kaiser was in a more convenient position than Bush in terms of domestic affairs; the German throne was not constrained by or answerable to parliament. However, in terms of actual events, Bush has until recently been largely exempt from the constraints historically imposed by Congress; and his theory of a "unitary executive" and use of extra-constitutional "signing statements" betray a willingness to govern without any oversight whatsoever. Notably, as William II had his Reichsfeinde, "enemies of the empire", Bush makes use, through surrogates mainly, of the idea that any opposition is per se treasonous.

The Kaiser is justly despised by history, and in his own country, for the damage that he did to his own people and the world. The odds are quite good that George Bush will come to be seen – indeed, is already seen – in much the same light. Unfortunately, we still have over two years to go, with a war brewing on the horizon; there is still ample opportunity for a headlong slide into catastrophe. This while our government is headed by a man, clothed in immeasurable power, who is answerable to no one.

Bush may well outdo the Kaiser's legacy.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |