For the second straight year, despite the so-called "culture wars" raging, a significant plurality (about 70%) of Americans agree that George W. Bush is an abject failure. Democrats and Republicans alike are eager to see his backside come January, and McCain is doing everything possible to escape the "Bush-McCain" pairing. In this regard, NYT reported today that GOP officials expressed relief that Bush would not be giving his scheduled speech tomorrow night at the convention - he's too toxic for advisers to want him anywhere near the Maverick senator.
But, returning to a topic that Mark launched on the blog last month that resulted in a spirited discussion, can we really say that Bush did everything wrong and is responsible for all the problems we find ourselves in today? In last week's Newsweek, senior international editor and columnist Fareed Zakaria counters this argument with a cogent analysis of everything Bush actually got right during his presidency. In a very real way, knee-jerk anti-Bushism, especially in the last year, has covered up significant changes for the good in the president's policies. We can all agree that Bush is a lame duck and is leaving an America that occupies a dimished role in the world, a crisis of the rule of law (FISA, torture, habeas corpus, etc.), two Middle Eastern wars, an economic mess, few plans for climate change, and a host of other nasty realities. But, as Zakaria points out, much of today's criticism of Bush is really towards the Bush of his first term and a half. The Bush of today, sidelined and increasingly irrelevant, has moved further and further to the center on a variety of issues. His policies are returning to the world of sanity, but his poll numbers haven't received as much as a bump, blinded as the public is at this point by reflexive Bushaphobia. Of course, the 2008 general election race is the media star now, not Bush-bashing; in many ways, the upcoming 44th president, whoever he will be, has stolen the media limelight from the president (Jon Stewart's "Still President Bush") ever since the Iowa Causus, and arguably before. We've all moved on.
This blog tends towards the liberal side and we've certainly been no friend of George W. Bush, but it is only fair to outline some of the changes for the good in Bush's policy over the last couple years. Here are a few:
- The Surge: Although sceptics were slow to admit it, and it certainly isn't a slam dunk yet, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that this strategy isn't progressively improving the situation in Iraq. In the face of great political opposition, Bush made an unpopular decision that appears now to be leading in a positive direction. While he certainly doesn't deserve all the credit for the stabilization of Iraq (and, of course, his desperado idiocy started the whole conflict to begin with), he certainly deserves a nod.
- North Korea: Bush started his tenure in office with an "under no circumstances will we negotiate with evil North Korea" policy towards the hermit nation. Today, our stance towards Kim Jong-Il is positively Clintonian, with plenty of carrots and sticks instead of resounding and dangerous silence.
- Staff Shake-up: Remember the bad ol' days of Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Rove, and Wolfowitz? One by one, these extremists have left Bush's inner circle, and the staff pouring advise into the porch of the president's ear now are a far saner, more moderate lot (Gates, Mukasey, Paulson, etc.).
- Iraq Timeline: In yet another example of the political world catching up to the proscriptions of Barack Obama, Bush now thinks a withdrawl timeline is a responsible idea. (I'm glad Bush has finally come around to the un-Patriotic "cut and run" strategy.)
- Israel-Palestine: His first years in the presidency were "hands off" when it came to this perennial conflict. He's been much more involved in the past year, even organizing a conference for the stubborn leaders of that region in Annapolis.
- Iran: Again, he's come around to a more reasonable, centrist position that favors direction negotiation about the much-feared nuclear program. (Again, Obama was the bellwether there.)
- PEPFAR: This African humanitarian aid program is praised in most political quarters. Despite the preposterous and deadly insistence on "abstinence only" programs, PEPFAR has been instrumental in fighting diseases in the poorest continent. Last year's funding for the program, in fact, increased from $1 billion in the first two years to a remarkable $6 billion, prompting the NYT columnist Nick Kristof to remark: "George Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did." (I haven't fact-checked that claim.)
It really is hard to feel sympathy for Dubya. In fact, I'm still under the opinion that some of the things that have occurred under Bush's watch are impeachable offenses, but regardless; he should get some credit for turning things around. "Some" - I'm not saying "a lot," but it's only rational that his various policy about-faces are reflected in his polling numbers. Of course, it is certainly arguable that what happened in Bush's first six years are eternally damnable and nothing will get him off the hook now. Part of me certainly feels this way.
In closing, this week's New York Times Magazine features a long article on the final day's of Bush's presidency. The author, Peter Baker, chronicles a man who has become obsessed with his legacy, and for whom poor poll numbers have almost become a mark of courage and honor (doing what's right in the face of unpopularity). Bush's complete lack of self-reflection is troubling; but his total inability to make a dent in his basement-level popularity, despite sensible decisions, gives me - I never thought I'd say it -some level of sympathy for the poor guy. The end of the article outlines a series of public addresses and conferences the president recently attended that, despite his handlers' attempt to publicize "the new Bush," drew zero media attention. Whether it be in front of a White House conference on "freedom," featuring dissidents from around the world, or a conference on faith-based social service programs, nary a television camera is in sight. Even though the White House bills a speech as "major," nobody shows up.
The deep aloneness and complete irrelevance of the president right now is justified, but he should at least be acknowledged for his recent policy changes in the right direction. It is time we put the self-defeating Schadenfreude aside. Today, Bush is a pathetic sight, in the sense that he is couched in pathos. In many ways (against, justifiably), he's been rendered powerless, the political fangs he used to possess removed and safely stored in a formaldehyde jar for the examination of reporters, authors, critics, and the international community. But a defanged snake is a sad sight indeed, even if it did bite us once.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I love Fareed Zakaria. And I also appreciate your noting some positive things that Bush has accomplished. I was trained in Peace Corps with PEPFAR money, and I thought it was a good program. Overall our government has a lot of things to LOVE when you look at other governments in the world. I'm feeling pretty optimistic about the election right now... no matter what happens we'll either have the first non-white president or first female vice-president. Yay for that.
I understand not getting so emotionally devout in your opinions on someone who has been as worthless as Bush has, whether you extend the failure moniker to 6.5 or 8 years of his presidency. That said, Bush's surge strategy is like throwing a cinder block at your foot, shattering every bone in said foot, but exclaiming "Hey, we saved a toenail!" You never should have thrown the cinder block to begin with, especially not with so little preparation or examination of other options. Maybe the foot had malignant cancer? Okay, you can still find more effective strategies than raw muscle, power, and limitless financial resources.
Yes, he may have done a few things right, and I've exclaimed it myself when hearing of some of his more recent "accomplishments," but this redemption talk cannot, I repeat, cannot in any way obscure people's healthy skepticism considering his most monumental of screw ups. Your average layman will see Bush as an idiot who just made a bunch of mistakes, your conspiracy theorist will show you a man who has used countless tricks to further rob Americans of their rights. I don't care what side you're on, ignoring mistakes of this magnitude is a monumental mistake of your own.
(universal usage of personal pronouns, I'm not aiming this at Zach)
I agree with your premise that Bush did some things right, although I disagree with the list (Mukasey, who was unable to call waterboarding torture and will not investigate blatant illegalities in his department is still an extremist in my book). Nobody does everything wrong. I'm in Ruxton's camp, though. I have no sympathy. Nor do I think what he has done right is any redemption on what he has done wrong.
First off, some of the things he has done right or things that Presidents should do anyways. It is like that Chris Rock sketch, where when a guy brags about not going to jail, Rock responds "You're not supposed to go to jail".
Humanitarian aid to Africa is something you're supposed to do as the leader of the USA. Backing down on rhetoric and embracing reality re: Iran so as not to start a third war in the Middle East isn't an accomplishment. Again, I hear Chris Rock saying "you're not supposed to start wars". North Korea policy has been successful, although things are breaking down again. Put in the context of Iraq, though, and the clear message is "you have nukes, we talk; you don't, we bomb." Any wonder why Iran is desperate for a weapons program?
Ok, we've basically exhausted that list. Clearly the list of things he has done wrong is too long for this comment. Indulge me as hit a few broad points.
1. By launching an aggressive war, Bush has set an incredibly dangerous international precedent for the future. Russia's actions in Georgia can be seen as a preview for perhaps future aggressive wars.
2. The United States now officially uses torture. This is a black mark on our history, one that can't be erased.
3. Government collusion with big business, at the expense of just about everything. The next administration will need years to fix the mess that Bush has created at the administrative level.
4. The Iraq war, not just for the lives lost, the prestige lost, the security lost, and the dollars lost. Also for the opportunity costs. After 9/11, George Bush had an opportunity few Presidents get. He had massive political and international support. People in the U.S. would have done anything he asked of them. He could have pushed an aggressive agenda of international nuclear disarmament. He could have insisted on a massive public works campaign to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Pick any cause that you care about, and then drop $9 billion a month into it. PEPFAR is nothing compared to the type of international aid Bush could have provided had we not invaded Iraq.
Bush is not responsible for all the problems of our country. But just about every problem is now worse because of Bush generally and the lost opportunities of the Iraq War specifically.
I take your points and share your thoughts myself. I hesitated to post this, but hey, I knew it would stir up some discussion...
The further criticisms listed here are certainly important to understand. Ultimately, I agree strongly, history will judge Bush as quite possibly the most destructive American president of the 20th century. There is too much bad to ever outweigh the too-little-too-late good. He's sunk.
What I was trying to get at, I guess, is the fact that Bush very easily could have continued his failed policies until Iraq was a failed state (as opposed to a failing state tentatively on its way up), Iran and North Korea were so isolated by America that they were driven to lashing out at the world, troops were in Iraq indefinitely, etc. There was really no reason for Bush to change course, and his past certainly suggests that he's too stubborn to entertain doing such a thing as changing course. Nonetheless, he manned up and changed course. While this does nothing to ameliorate his catastrophic early tenure, at least it is a public demonstration of recognition - even though he would never admit it directly - that the other way is possible and preferable. He deserves a tepid "thanks" for not continuing to be himself.
As I mentioned, his polling numbers aren't reflecting his shift towards more reasonable policies. As Chris pointed out in a conversation today, however, presidential polling is more of a reflection of the national mood than it is a referendum on the president's current affairs: economic issues, therefore, are trumping shifts in foreign policy. There are many more reasons for a flat popularity rating than simply blind Bush hatred.
In ways this post was an exercise in positive thinking (seeing good in something bad) and tempered sympathy (wanting to toss a political wretch a bone). I agree with you guys in your criticisms, but I'm glad it got a little discussion going!
Post a Comment