Don’t pick up a copy of Timothy S. Goeglein’s “Man in the Middle: An inside account of faith and politics in the George W. Bush era” expecting to find any earth-shattering new revelations about “the decider-in-chief’s” White House.
Though he was recruited for the Bush campaign in 2000 by none other than Karl Rove, Goeglein was not, by his own description, part of the innermost circle of advisors and strategists who took the Texas governor from Austin to the Oval Office, with an unexpected and drastically extended detour in Florida along the way.
As special assistant to the president and deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liason, Goeglein was instead “the president’s point man with what is commonly called ‘the base’ – the whole of American conservatism – evangelicals and Mass-attending Catholics, the major veterans groups, the think tanks, public policy groups and a number of the leading and elite cultural institutions.”
So, although he wasn’t typically in the West Wing room when the most momentous decisions of the Bush years were being made, Goeglein was, because Rove “gave me entrée to the president and the senior staff,” very much present and a participant as strategies were worked out for explaining and selling those decisions to the American public.
And from that vantage point, Goeglein “spent a lot of time with the president at fairly close range” over a seven-year period “on many occasions and in multiple settings.
He was thus a key player in an under-appreciated stratum of official Washington, the often prodigiously talented, incredibly hard-working and immensely influential second rank of senior aides who advise the chief executive and members of his inner circle, then do the nitty gritty of making things happen on a daily basis.
These are folks who don’t often write books about their experiences, both because they can only rarely claim to have played decisive roles in the most important decision-making and because they typically are seen as less important than big names like Rove, Axelrod and Gergen and thus aren’t asked.
But those who wish to gain a realistic understanding of how things actually work in a White House, regardless of the party in power, are indebted to Goeglein, especially those many who hope to someday serve in a White House at a similar level and who are even now perhaps slaving away on the campaign trail on behalf of one of the aspirants or for a senator or representative in Congress.
This is not to say “Man in the Middle” lacks insight specifically about the second member of the Bush clan to be elected to the nation’s highest office. To the contrary, there are multiple peeks behind the scenes that provide insights about the temperament and deportment of Bush as he processed mountains of information, analyses and recommendations on important issues. See especially Goeglein’s account of the deliberations on Bush’s stem cells and gay marriage decisions.
Finally, and in some respects, most importantly, “Man in the Middle” also lets us see a great deal about why and how the immense and unremitting stresses and cross-cutting pressures from special interests hoping to move the president instead fall mercilessly on aides like Goeglein, who are expected to grin and bear it at any cost. There is a quiet sort of heroism evident between the lines here.
In the process, Goeglein helps us better understand why working in the White House under such conditions inevitably puts a strain on even the best of marriages and families. Trust me, it is tougher even than Goeglein discloses because there is so much more neither he nor indeed any loyal aide would ever disclose.
“Man in the Middle” is not an unalloyed reading pleasure. Goeglein is a competent writer with a good eye for detail, but he makes no bones about his immense admiration for Bush.
Having worked for Ronald Reagan (though not in the White House proper), I can empathize with the tendency even while conceding that it does get a bit tiresome here and there in “Man in the Middle.”
Some readers may also find it a bit off-putting in dealing with Goeglein’s recurring histrionics in describing his gratitude to or regard for the assistance, achievements or competence of others who played significant roles in his pre-Bush career.
A concluding note: Those who wonder how Goeglein addresses the unpleasant circumstances surrounding his departure from the White House staff should be aware that he does so at the outset of his book.
He is nothing if not studiously frank and courageous in describing how it happened and why. And the incredibly dignified and forgiving way Bush responded to the situation after its unavoidable conclusion goes far toward explaining the intensity of loyalty displayed throughout “Man in the Middle.”
Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner.
