There's a quote making the rounds from Graydon Carter of Vanity Fair. It seeks to answer the question of why George W. Bush always sounds like he's talking to an audience of very small children…
He speaks to the audience as if they're idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that's the way these issues were explained to him.
There may be some truth to that but I'd like to throw out another thought. I think powerful, successful people cling to certain management styles and techniques that have worked for them in the past. When Michael Dukakis was defeated in his presidential bid, someone asked him why, when it was obvious the last week or so that he was not going to win, he didn't try something different. His answer, and I think this is more typical than not, is that when you're in a crunch is not the time to abandon all the things that got you as far as they did. Especially in crisis situations, most folks' tendency is to retreat to the methods of past successes, even though what worked then and there might not apply here and now.
I saw some old footage on C-Span a week or two ago of Bush in his Texas governor days. I can see why this guy got elected. He had a skill for simplifying issues down to the point where they sounded like his position was the only moral or intelligent option. It may not have been an intellectually honest approach, painting the opposing path as something it was not, but there was always an edge of humility to it. He laid out his case as if the choice was more important than he was, and it didn't sound condescending, didn't make him sound like a Kindergarten teacher. Maybe it's just that as he's gotten more powerful (and in his mind, I'm sure, more successful), the humble part of that has gotten harder and harder to retain.
There are still some people out there who admire the man's tenacity and cocksuredness. Having occasionally suffered at the hands of people who were absolutely sure of their direction, long after open minds would have realized they were going the wrong way, I don't find that as admirable as some do. A lot of people say Bush doesn't care about the polls and that he's sure history will vindicate him as having done the right thing in Iraq. I don't think there's ever been a politician who didn't care about the polls, if only because bad polling numbers make it more difficult to accomplish one's objectives. I'm more inclined to view Bush as a gambler who got lucky for a time with a system…and now that he's losing, all he knows how to do is bet more on that system.