The Bush era is wrapping up and so many people are counting down the days until he's outta here. I would like to take a few minutes to outline why Bush wasn't a bad president. This isn't a "rah-rah Bush" blog, but rather an explanation from my perspective as to why there were other presidents that were much worse, and he was just an average president who encountered many problems. Mainly the scrutiny of the left because he was on the right.
I think the liberal left is totally against anyone on the right because the left feel the right's beliefs are fundamentally wrong. And I think the liberals focus on only specific beliefs the conservatives are known to support. For example: emphasis of traditional views of social units such as family, and church; restricting marriage to relationships between a man and a woman; supporting laws placing restrictions on abortions, and second amendment rights. But there is so much more to the conservative movement, and I think everyone can agree that it's difficult or perhaps impossible to support every position and viewpoint of one side or another. And I think the liberals ignore this. They lump everyone who isn't liberal into the other category (the enemies) and assume they all share the same viewpoints. Oh and are the first to cry and complain when someone stereotypes. Whatever. So I would like to point out that Conservatism is also about believing in a limited government, limited fiscal spending, limited taxation, a balanced budget, and strong beliefs in capitalism.
With that said, I think that Bush started off hated by the left because he wasn't a liberal. (Mind you if a liberal stared off hated because she or he was a liberal that would be unacceptable!) So lets look at the issues that he is judged for.
The first obvious one is the war. As we should all examine, the facts clearly outline a few key points that the liberal public love to forget. One: Congress voted to go to war (and congress at this time was a primarily democrat congress) and two: it was also something the UN and our supporting countries were in favor of doing at the time. But you get those people who do not favor the war who complain that it didn't have anything to do with 9/11/01, they say we should have stuck with just Afghanistan, because if we had we might have caught Osama Bin Laden (I'll revisit this point later) and quickly forget these two points. I feel that is ignorant and close-minded to do that. And then we have the other group of people that started off supporting the war because they felt like Saddam Hussein should be stopped, and then once the death count started climbing and the fiscal spending started getting out of control, and they quickly changed their minds, they decided they were against the war and want the troops to come home. I wonder if they care about the genocide that was happening in that country before we arrived (they do care about genocide if George Clooney is campaigning about Darfour, but that's it) or the terrorism that will rage out of control if we were to really withdraw like they demand.
What else does he get blamed for. The economy? For most of his administration we have had low taxes (he passed some temporary tax cuts through Congress in 2001 and 2003 that have boosted the economy, that the Democrats can't wait to expire in 2011). The unemployment rate has been low as well, approximately 5.5% which economists call "full-employment". It wasn't until September of 2008 that we experienced the economic problems we are experiencing now. I have seen a lot of finger pointing on this issue, and no financial expert I find credible points the finger at Bush. Besides a greedy Wall Street, a housing bubble that popped due to overextended home owners, I feel the blame goes to a few corrupted democrats: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd to name a few. But it's hard to prove who's right, who's wrong, who's to blame, who's innocent. I will point out in doing my research for this blog I did find that one of my financial guru's had this to say when the financial mess really hit the fan in September 2008: "Both Obama and McCain released statements talking about the failure of regulators to police the markets. As far back as 1998, I've (Clark Howard) been saying we need a cop on the beat in capitalism. Think about that -- as far back as 1998. So this is not just a Bush problem; it goes back to the Clinton days".
Some conveniently forgotten facts about other terrible presidents: Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to take out Osama Bin Laden, and chose not to. He had the guy in the sniper's scope and said don't pull the trigger. In fact in February of 1996 Sudan offered to turn him over to us and Clinton said no thanks. Talk about failure on the war on terrorism. And not that this was a big deal to me personally, but you have to admit the Monica Lewinsky scandal and all the other sex scandals Clinton had while in office was an embarrassment to the country. Who wants a president that publically cheats on his wife and goes through an impeachment over it! Ugh.
Jimmy Carter has got to be the worst president in history. A democrat. He had the lowest approval rating in history. The interest rates when he was in office topped at 21%. Try getting a home loan at that amount. Gas was rationed and people had to wait in lines hours long just to fill up. Let's not forget the hostages that were captured in Iran for 444 days that were released when Regan immediately took office. Carter tried to rescue them but FAILED. And a lot of Iranians who were forced out of their country by his backing of Khomeini believe Carter is the reason America no longer has a good relationship with Iran 30 years later. But I believe the worst part of his presidency was allowing the genocide to happen in Cambodia, and he just stood by and allowed it. Anyone ever heard of Pol Pot? No? Look him up. Jimmy Carter somehow gets to be recognized for humanitarianism yet 2 million people (25% of the country's population) die over there and he does nothing.
To summarize, If you believe in spreading democracy and protecting the United States against potential or perceived threats, even if they are not immediate, you support two of the Bush doctrines. Here are all four of his doctrines:
Preemption (don't sit here and wait to be attacked, it's called offense not defense), Military Primacy (military superiority, I vote for that), New Multilateral ism (getting others to take up the slack), and the Spread of Democracy (dictatorship is bad!).
I have a feeling some of you who were on that "hater" band wagon had no idea what Bush's doctrines were, what he stood for and might agree with some of most of them. If you don't I'd like to know why.
If you still think Bush is the worst president in history after reading this (and reading about the atrocities of Jimmy Carter) I'd like to know why.
So even if you disagree some of his policies, get annoyed with the way he speaks, the mistakes he's made, etc. Look back and tell me is he really that bad if you look at the big picture?
Finally, someone who hasn't jumped on the "it's cool to bash Bush" bandwagon, and is thinking for herself!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog. It was very enlightening! It wouldn't let me post my comment though (probably because it was too big :) Here goes...
ReplyDelete"To be honest, I am ignorant when it comes to politics. I purposely slept through high school government class, I avoid the news, I don’t keep up with elections and voting periods, nor do I even know most of the names on ballots. I avoid politics (and the news) because it is corrupted. It is chocked full of opinions, half-stories, and the topics that the mass public WANT to hear.
I understand that every government has their corruption. The world is not perfect. And I also understand that everyone needs leadership. Knowing this, I would rather be part of something that is NOT on the radar as a target. The US is a world bully. When I was overseas surrounded by Muslims, I got to view the US through their eyes. That experience was an eye-opener and cannot be learned in an American classroom.
The general US public is spoiled and feels they are entitled. Whenever there is the slightest of change, even for the common good, we are whiners. It is amazing how people are finally grateful for their jobs right now, because they HAVE a job. People are funny like that. Just like children, you have to take something away for it to be appreciated. What if we were all starving and didn’t have our fine dining and supersized meals? We might appreciate all that we have and whine a bit less. Many people in the world find $1.00/day wages and a bowl of rice as a blessing. Meanwhile, I hear people bitch that the wine they were served is too cold or that gas prices may affect their vacation budget since their giant SUV is guzzling their money away. Boo hoo … poor America.
I believe these times teach us to be minimalists. This can be a good thing. The US is the worst when it comes to consumer waste. Now we are spending wisely, less finicky about our jobs, and are finding enjoyment with more simplicity than extravagance. Death to status!
Back to President Bush. Personally, I feel Bush was played. When he was brought into presidency, he was working someone else’s agenda, following a checklist, and reading the scripts set in front of him. Bush’s family and cabinet were running the show these past eight years and Bush is taking the hit of all those decisions as the primary spokesperson having to give the world the news under a spotlight.
I prefer to stay away from these topics so I can enjoy a somewhat peaceful life. Disagreements on religion and politics are the primary reason why there is so much death and destruction everywhere. I want me and my family to have a bed to sleep in, a roof over our heads, and food on the table. I understand that I am not entitled to have these things. That is where most of the US is ignorant.
What I am entitled to as a US citizen is the freedom to just LIVE and that is what my family and I do best. There will always be someone ready to disagree with us and push their views. I know what I believe in (both with religion and politics) even though most would agree that I have very little understanding, and they are probably right. It isn’t worth the argument though. I see enough in my daily life to know who I don’t want to be … and that is pure education at its best."
Comment provided by Holly HW, aka the perfect Holly aka Holly #2
Thanks Holly for the comments!!!
I don't have to be a Bush hater to not agree with his policies.
ReplyDeleteYour claim that the liberal left lumps all of the right together is true of the right also. Neither extreme is good. I might add that this heavy extremist scrutiny started with the right when Bill Clinton took office. Read- "Blinded by the Right"-written by one of those on the right who was funded and worked to discredit the Clinton administration-then he writes the tell all book.
Let's start with your "facts" about the war. Congress in 2003 was not primarily democratic. The House was made up of more republicans than democrats and the Senate had one more Democrat than Republican-sounds pretty even. Congress authorized Bush to Use Necessary Force in Iraq after public sentiment changed. In early 2003, 85% of the public supported diplomacy in Iraq,so what did the Bush administration do? Go on a PR campaign to link Saddam to 9/11 and it worked. I was one of those who didn't change their mind and I was accused of being unpatriotic. That's PR for sure. The UN did not approve of the US invasion of Iraq. When it was evident that the resolution proposed would not pass the Security Council it was withdrawn.
Genocide had gone on in Iraq long before the US invasion and we turned a blind eye because Saddam was our ally at that time, since he was fighting against Iran. Horrible foreign policy that the US has used a lot-enemy of my enemy is my ally- that's how we ended up training Osama Bin Laden in Afgahistan against the Russians.
Who to blame for economic problems? When its good we give the president the credit and when its bad we blame him. Most Americans don't have a real grasp of how the economy works- so no Bush shouldn't take all the blame, but deregulation starting in the 1980's combined with new economic products-derivitives-has created this mess. If you don't know about derivitives, most people don't neither did the regulators, just sum up the mess with one word- GREED!
Bush's administration may not solely be responsible for the economic woes, but on his watch we have supended habeus corpus, tortured prisoners, lost favor with most of the international community, had federal judges fired for partisan reasons, leaked the name of a CIA agent for retribution, and increased the debt while the rich took a tax cut. I won't even go into the mess the wars are. He has also worked to pass NCLB-showing his commitment to education and increased funding to address the need to fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
Are you a Clinton/Carter hater?
As to the claim about Clinton not "pulling the trigger" on Bin Laden the 9/11 Commission found no reliable evidence to support this claim and that group was headed by Jim Baker a close friend of the Bush family.
History is interpretive, so maybe you think Carter is the worst. But your claim that he had the lowest approval rating in history is wrong. That goes to Truman at 23% only a little less than Nixon at 24%. Carter hit 28% and "W" had the highest approval rating at 90% just after 9/11. From 90%-29% is Bush's range.
As for Carter's presidency, should he take the blame for the economy if Bush doesn't have to. The gas rationing (I waited in those lines) was because of OPEC not Carter. I really get tired of correcting this one. The hostage release was made because of negotitions with the Carter Administration. Just because the release was only days after Reagan took office many give him the credit. His administration was not in place to make the negotiations. While the Carter administration was ineffective in Washington, his presidency is notworthy for the Camp David Accords, which historically created the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement. A move that later cost Anwar Sadat his life.
As for spreading democracy- an ideal that is not so easily done in reality-not all nation-states have the capacity for democracy. Hamas was democratically elected, that isn't working out too well. Preemption is not necessary to protect our national security-it is bullying. Might does not make right. The idea of military primacy has been used throughout history only to see the 20th century bring about the world's deadliest wars. Globalization is the key to spreading democracy-inclusion not exclusion. Democracy has worked in America, because we have had to deal with creating a society of inclusion-from a Civil War to Civil Rights. We must work to create an inclusive world and be a model if we hope to spread democracy. To help other nation states rise to our economic level will help spread democracy. War is not the way to spread democracy-people do not understand an abstract concept, when they are fighting for their basic needs.
I guess I will just stay out of this one... I don't have enough factual knowledge to participate (I can be one of those people you blog about later). But to you guys who do, keep going until the truth is found - educate me! I see some differences here in the "facts" (is that possible?) and can't wait to see which facts prevail.
ReplyDeleteWhile you guys discover the truths, I have a few questions to add to the discussion.
How much of the "truth" do you feel the general public can ever know about the happenings in the government? We will only be told what is deemed necessary to know, and we will always hear it all with a slant. What is the best place to get "facts"?
What criteria should the people use to judge our leaders? Should they have to be Christian? Should they not be divorced? Should they have never cheated? Should they have never broken a law? Should they have never inhaled? Should they have served in the armed forces? Should they have attended an ivy league college? Should they not smoke? Should they have a certain BMI? Should they be well spoken? Should they be attractive?