Despite poor ratings, Bush has been an effective president
By Alexander Pherson
Jan. 14, 2009 9:01 p.m.
The left wing of America has little sympathy for President George W. Bush and the extraordinary nature of the challenges he faced.
When Bush came into office, he was expecting his presidency to hinge on perennial issues like tax reform and education reform. Indeed, he had good reason to think so. After the fall of the Soviet Union, political scientists were predicting a cooling-off period in international relations that could last for several decades. No one could have remotely predicted a war on terror coming as early as it did.
After Sept. 11, Bush made the bold move to break with the status quo and confront the problems in the Middle East head-on. For over 50 years, American foreign policy had consisted of “appeasing” local sovereigns ““ a policy that ignored the budding problems in the region. Bush reversed that trend. Over time, Bush’s campaign in the Middle East came to be associated almost exclusively with the war in Iraq. In particular, it became associated with its failures ““ and especially the long duration of the war. At long last, success is on the horizon. Thanks to the surge, which is a credit to Bush’s humility and grit, Iraq is on the mend. And despite vocal retorts to the contrary (America “standing alone” and all that), our image around the world remains in good shape.
Critics declared the Bush Doctrine defunct long before it had a chance to succeed. For those opposed to war of any kind, no explanation justified our intervention. The thought of denying “human rights” to ““ gasp ““ terrorists was simply unimaginable.
Of course, our pursuit of stability in the region has been far from orderly or perfect. But there is nothing if not nobility in overthrowing a fascist dictator to spread democracy. And that’s what we did.
As for our methods ““ wiretapping, Guantanamo ““ Bush did just what the Founding Fathers would have wanted. Regardless of what the Supreme Court may think, the president has expanded powers during wartime. Beyond initial support, he should not have to genuflect to Congress to get every measure passed. On the contrary, the Constitution was built on an expectation of antagonism between the branches, which is reflected in the separation of powers structure.
Bush stood up to our enemies at a time when cracking down on anyone ““ even terrorists ““ was thought to be “intolerant.” He had the wisdom to intuit that the war on terror was a war of good against evil. Certainly, the fact that the media kept mentioning the death count in Iraq did nothing to help public perception about the war. (The most recent reports indicate that fewer people died in combat under Clinton than Bush.) But had Obama been president on Sept. 11, I doubt that things would be for the better. Saddam Hussein would probably still be piling women and children into mass graves.
Bush’s greatest achievement will always be his dedication to the war. And indeed, I think history will look on him kindly for this. As for the rest of his agenda, his record is a mixed bag. Bush ran as a moderate ““ “compassionate” ““ conservative. In his inaugural address in 2001, he griped about the partisan divide in government: “Year after year in Washington, budget debates seem to come down to an old, tired argument ““ on one side, those who want more government, regardless of the cost; on the other, those who want less government, regardless of the need.”
Bush’s agenda would remain remarkably bipartisan. Many of his policies, from his drug entitlement program, to his abandonment of education reform, to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief earned him disrepute in the Republican Party. So did his unwavering commitment to Iraq and of course, the bailout.
Yet despite these facts, Bush remains an incorrigible right-winger in the popular imagination. I suppose he was doomed to such a fate. “W” was never someone who liberals were likely to accept into their circle. He’s not an intellectual in the classical sense, and he doesn’t use the lofty rhetoric that’s become expected in politics. He’s deeply religious. He lacks the airs of most Ivy Leaguers. He’s funny in a “gotcha” kind of way ““ as opposed to a brainy way.
And what’s wrong with that?
Personally, I’d rather be governed by a man who’s in touch with himself than one who’s wrapped up in egghead ideas that don’t work. On this point, I have to agree with William F. Buckley Jr., who said that he’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone book than to the faculty of Harvard University.
Many make the gross mistake of assuming that so-called “intellectuals” are infallible. Whether that perception will change in the next four years is anyone’s guess. But I am inclined to believe that history will vindicate George W. Bush, and people will come to see that he was before his time ““ standing against convention. Anyway, that is my hope.
E-mail Pherson at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected].
