Posted by
Joe Cor on Friday, February 18, 2011 5:29:27 AM
President Bush, after spending eight years in the White House eschewing all concern for public approval, or even public comprehension, of his policies, has now written a book to assuage his concern for his legacy, and thus firm up his numbers with that key demographic group known as Unborn-and-As-Yet-Unconceived-Americans. Among the much more modestly-sized population of currently-living, ardent Bush admirers, Decision Points’ release has also provided a fresh opportunity to shower the former president with accolades, and engage in misty-eyed, choked-up reminisces of his presidency.
Personally, however, I find myself unable to participate in Bush nostalgia. No lump forms in my throat, and my eyes remain dry. I do not share in or comprehend the affection that the vast majority of conservatives bestow upon him. Nor do I think that this unbounded affection for President Bush is a positive indicator of the health of American conservatism.
I am not oblivious to the positives of the George W. Bush’s presidency. He cut taxes. He pursued missile defense. His enhanced interrogation techniques yielded valuable information and prevented additional terrorist attacks after 9-11. He was kind of pro-life, as long as he didn’t have to make too big a point out of it. He showed genuine political courage when he twice vetoed bills for the government funding of embryo-destroying research. His initial military strategy in Afghanistan appeared sound. His initial invasion strategy for Iraq appeared sound, and – after taking a walkabout for a couple of years – he made a good decision about the Surge. He made a superb choice for his Vice President, although he blunted its value by then muzzling him. His half-hearted attempt to privatize a small portion of Social Security contributions was a great in principle.
However, even President Bush’s most ardent fans would have to admit that his policy record was mixed. He spent like a drunken Democrat (although, to be fair, not like a free-basing Democrat). His immigration policy was suicidal for the nation. He refused to control the borders. After announcing an Axis of Evil, he merely kicked the can down the road for eight years when it came to Iran and North Korea. He signed the campaign finance reform bill into law after having campaigned against it. He almost lost the Iraq war before he decided to focus his attention back on it. He wanted to make two horrific nominations for the Supreme Court before his base forced him into making sound ones. He was AWOL during the monetary crisis late in his term. He illegally used bailout fund to turn GM into a government-run corporation.
But none of those sins are the cause of my lack of warm regard for President Bush. If he had been nothing more than a President with a middling policy record, I could have lived with that, especially considering the policies of the presidents who preceded and followed him. But a president must do more than simply have a policy and implement it. He is not a mere technician; he must also lead. He is expected to sell the public on his ideas – repeatedly if necessary. He is expected to defend his policies from unwarranted and libelous attacks. He is duty-bound to concern himself with the long-term viability of his policies, and to see to it that they have a shelf life that extends beyond his own stay in the White House. He is required to be a politician in the best sense of the word.
The crux of my inability to warm up to President Bush is then this: he engaged in the most thoroughly reckless, self-destructive mismanagement of presidential politics I have ever seen. For eight years, President Bush consistently and steadfastly maintained a fetal position in the face of unbelievably vicious and savage attacks leveled against him, him policies, and members of his administration. This relentless, astonishingly unintelligent political strategy resulted in the destruction of his personal credibility, the credibility of his policies, the credibility of conservative principles, and the political credibility and viability of the Republican Party. His surrender of the public policy debate was so complete, and the public’s trust in and understanding of his own policies was eroded to such an extent, that a radical Progressive was able to gain control of the Presidency, and radical Progressives were able to acquire unstoppable majorities in the House and Senate. While they had that power, they used it ruthlessly, and now it will take a fierce, pitched battle to ever undo the damage they wrought. And while I do not deny the other factors went into making the catastrophe of Obamacare – Obama, Reid and Pelosi; the media; John McCain’s obsequious, apologetic, spiritless campaign; Mitch McConnell’s failure to pull out all the stops to draw out the Senate debate up to the Massachusetts special election; “Macaca”; the American voters – if I could name a single individual who was most instrumental in handing the Democrats the means with which to achieve their ends, that person would be George W. Bush. Without his political agenda of not offending your enemies, of futilely trying to win their approval, of only opposing them in absurdly polite, and totally ineffective ways – of only allowing yourself to be the type of Republican you imagine your opponents would approve of – there would have been no Democratic supermajorities, quite possibly no President Obama, and no Obamacare, DREAM Act, and fiscal disaster for the nation.
It is ludicrous to suggest that President Bush’s behavior was justified by his deep concern for the dignity associated with the office of President of the United States, a dignity which required him to stay “above” partisan concerns. It is ludicrous to suggest that such a constraint on presidential action even exists. Being the nominee of a political party, campaigning on the platform of that political party, debating the nominee of the other political party in the course of being elected, and then, once elected, being the leader of a political party and its most visible representative to the American people, the president cannot suddenly take a vow of political celibacy upon assuming office. He is duty-bound to concern himself with the politics of his situation, because in a democracy politics is an essential and fundamental ingredient of governance. If the president takes a vow of political celibacy, while his opponents are under no such constraint, and when the media is almost universally aligned against him, he is deliberately inviting failure. He is turning the occupation of the office of the Presidency, inherently a huge political asset with its bully pulpit, into a crippling liability. But that is precisely what President Bush did. By deliberately crippling himself politically, by willfully letting his opponents define him, by letting public support for his policies crater, President Bush was glaringly and inexcusably derelict in his fundamental duty to be a politician and a leader.
The connections between politics and leadership, and leadership and governance, are so fundamental that it is inconceivable that a man whose family business is politics would not be aware of them. But President Bush appeared incapable of comprehending that his job was not just to decide, but to lead. When he was libeled, and when members of his administration were libeled, and when the troops who served under him were libeled, he refused to take his case to the American people and refute those libels. He instead pointed to his presidential “dignity” shackles – an excuse on a par with “the dog ate my homework”– and remained silent behind his desk. The casually-informed voter, who like it or not, is the backbone of our political system, was left to draw the entirely understandable conclusion that since President Bush wasn’t defending his policies, they must be indefensible.
President Bush’s supporters remain studiously obtuse to this fatal flaw. They ignore, and explain away, and even praise his passivity, and refuse to consider how this passivity doomed even his good policies to a short shelf life beyond his own term. They have composed a heroic narrative regarding President Bush that is the polar opposite to the feverish ranting of his lunatic critics on the left, but no less fanciful for being so. His supporters cling to their narrative with such fervor that President Obama might confuse it for their guns or religion. Some of the more dubious assertions of this narrative include the following:
Bush held left-wing elites in “disdain.” – Really? This was a man who was hesitant to say anything elites might disapprove of, even if in the defense of his own policies. He felt so uncomfortable criticizing Democrats that he would criticize “congress” instead. He displayed an insatiable desire to praise Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Nancy Pelosi. He called Ted Kennedy, a man who openly challenged the morality of his policies, his “good friend.” His wife, whom I would presume speaks on his behalf, praises Michelle Obama and Barak Obama constantly. Shortly after he left office, President Bush told us all to give Barak Obama “a chance” to carry out his policies, even as Obama was threatening a malicious prosecution of members of Bush’s own administration. Far from holding left-wing elites in disdain, he seemed almost painfully in need of their approval, and willing to go to embarrassing lengths to try to get it.
Bush was “misunderestimated.” – Were we expecting him to spend his entire second term at a 15% approval rating, leave office with a 300-seat Democrat majority in the House and a 75-seat Democrat majority in the Senate, to have drifted in Iraq for three-and-a-half years before changing strategies, and to have abandoned Social Security reform after two days instead of two weeks? Exactly how low a bar were we setting for him?
Bush was always “gracious.” – Toward the elites who were viciously attacking him, true enough. He couldn’t flatter his opponents enough, couldn’t turn the other cheek enough times, couldn’t sweep their indiscretions and criminalities under the rug quickly enough. But when it came to his own supporters, or worse, one of the members of his administration, it was an entirely different story. It is hard to imagine a less gracious sacking than the public humiliation Donald Rumsfeld was subjected to. People who crossed him on his appointment of Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court or immigration "reform" were definitely not treated graciously: he suspended his vow of political celibacy and called them sexist and unpatriotic. While President Bush rushed to the defense of Nancy Pelosi when she came under fire for her excessive use of military transports, he became mute when it came to defending the troops under his command from the shameful, libelous attacks leveled at them by the left. While he could let Sandy Berger off the hook with a slap on the wrist for stealing and destroying numerous classified documents (in the process, leaving us in the dark forever about what he was so desperate to cover up), he had no problem letting Scooter Libby suffer endlessly for having a set of recollections different from other disparate, and unindicted, recollections in the so-called “outing” of Valerie Plame. “Graciousness,” when it is directed at your elitist enemies, while you reserve your disdain or indifference for your own lowly, hopelessly unhip supporters, bears more than a casual resemblance to groveling.
Bush always maintained his dignity. – Only if one of the definitions of “dignity” is “fetal posture,” which I have not fact-checked, but am confident is not one of the definitions found in the Oxford English Dictionary. Also, only if dignity entails engaging in numerous embarrassing, and cringe-inducing, “kick me” comedy routines at White House correspondent dinners. Part of the long-standing narrative of the left is that Republicans are all oafs and idiots. President Bush, with his shrewd political instincts, decided the best way to respond to this narrative was to embrace and actively cultivate it. He made endless cracks about his own lack of intelligence. He even did one of these “boy-am-I-dumb” comedy shticks with a look-alike double. He had Mrs. Bush tell embarrassing and highly insulting jokes about him, Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. He told an elaborate and completely tasteless sex joke about his own Vice President to a room full of reporters utterly hostile to Mr. Cheney. “Dignified” is that last word I would use to describe these comedy acts, which were more like Republican minstrel shows put on to assure Democrats that the current administration knew the difference between the back end and front end of a bus.
Bush didn't sink to the level of his opponents. – Here, Bush’s supporters are engaging in rhetorical sleight of hand, suggesting that his only choices were total passivity or engaging in mud-slinging of his own. By way of analogy, suppose that a man named George sees his neighbor Harry set fire to his house. Suppose then that George proceeds to casually sit out on his front lawn, drink a beer and watch his house burn to the ground. He remains unconcerned and thinks instead about the book he will someday write about how good a house he had built. He then invites Harry, who may have set fire to his house, but also belongs to a real exclusive country club George would desperately like membership in, to sit down next to him, share a beer and chew the fat for a while. While he’s sitting there with Harry he complains about some of the other neighbors. They live in some of the poorer houses in the neighborhood, but at the moment are trying to set up a bucket brigade to save George’s house as he indifferently watches it burn down. But George gripes about them to Harry because they previously objected to his proposal make his 15-year-old pool boy the town’s Justice of the Peace and also objected to his and Harry’s solution to a local crime spree by initiating a “guest bank robbers” program. Watching all this, you might think that all this was monumentally unintelligent behavior on the part of George – and not just your garden variety of monumentally unintelligent behavior – and ask just what in the name of the Almighty George thought he was doing.
Now imagine one of George's incredibly loyal friends working on the bucket brigade, and working quite heroically at it, defends George’s behavior, and actually commends him for refusing to resort to arson himself. I firmly believe you would find that defense of George patently absurd, and once again not just your garden variety of patently absurd. You were never suggesting that George go on an arson spree of his own, but were quite naturally expecting him try, and try mightily, to put out the fire that his arsonist neighbor had set to his own house. And you might also suggest that while he was doing that, it might be an extremely good idea to quit the ludicrous charade that he’s bosom buddies with Harry, and refrain from trashing the very people who were valiantly trying to save his house. In the same way, no one was suggesting that President Bush start his own mud-slinging war with Democrats; they simply wanted him to challenge their untrue assertions, get his own facts out there, and repeat the facts as often as necessary to prevent Democrats' lies from becoming ingrained in the minds of the American people as established truths. They wanted him to acknowledge that the lies were a fire burning down his Presidency, and to smother that fire with the truth.
Bush will be vindicated by “history.” – Once again, this is rhetorical sleight of hand, suggesting that “history” is nothing but remembrances and judgment to be made in 100 years when a textbook might indeed concede that yes, Bush had a pretty good terrorist interrogation strategy. But history is not just what is remembered; it is, much more importantly, what actually happens. In terms of having a positive impact on what has actually transpired, I suggest President Bush’s impact is increasingly diminish, and in fact increasingly negative. His good policies have been dismantled before our eyes, because his refusal to make any attempt to maintain public support for them while they were savagely discredited. His passivity reduced public support for conservative principles was to such a low level that Reagan’s revolution at the moment seems like nothing more than a brief Indian Summer in the otherwise dismal march of America toward Statism. If President Bush wanted to have a real impact on history, he would have defended his actions when that defense could have had a real and positive impact on historical events. Coming out with a book now may help President Bush assuage his preoccupation with how he is viewed centuries from now, but his refusal to defend himself while he was President helped set up the very nasty turn of history we’ve gone through these last two years.
Bush kept us “safe.” – Our nation faces two fundamental threats, one foreign, and one domestic. President Bush was reasonably attentive to the foreign threat facing this country, but he ignored the domestic threat to our liberties and way of life: the relentless, increasingly radicalized Progressive element that controls the Democratic Party. The Republican Party, as deeply flawed as it is, is the last line of defense against that threat. President Bush eviscerated this line of defense, and left the country vulnerable to the whims of a Democratic supermajority. When you have two lines of defense, you have to fight both battles at once. You can’t decide one of the threats is nothing but a bunch of “good folks” who only need a few more one-on-one personal meetings with the President at the White House in order to be dealt with. “History” will not forgive you for doing that.
President Bush subordinated all public policy concerns to the overarching consideration of trying to get you opponents to like you. He made the highest aim of governance out to be a totally trivial, utterly non-serious preoccupation with maintaining an imaginary collegiality with your political opponents. This MacNameraian approach to governance only allowed you to pursue policy initiatives under absurd restrictions. You might politely propose to reform Social Security, but could not defend your proposal when it was predictably misrepresented by the left. You could sign a bill to try to save the life of Terri Schiavo, but were barred from engaging in any public debate on the rights of Terri Schiavo that were being trampled on. You might propose rules to reign in the excesses of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, but could not press the matter too forcefully when Democrats shot it down. But as long as you went through the right motions, regardless of your indifference to actually results, you had done your job, and “history” would, in due time, give you your gold star. Doing enough to actually impact events by engaging in a public debate, fighting back, refuting your opponents' lies and distortions – trying mightily to actually succeed, in other words -- was not allowed.
President Bush’s supporters’ consistent “misoverestimating” of him, and their willful inability to recognize the damage his political mismanagement caused this country, troubles me because it shows that conservatives have a dangerous intellectual trait that I had thought was confined to the left: suspending synaptic activity for the sake of an attractive narrative, or (to many on the right at least) for the sake of an attractive personality. While this tendency is no less damaging to the country when engaged in by the left, their suspension of judgment, with the benefit of the media echo chamber to amplify it, at least manages to advance their own political agenda. However, when conservatives fool themselves, they only end up fooling themselves.
Getting out of the situation we’re in, if that is even possible, requires that we squarely view it head-on, including the path that led us here. We need to admit that we had and still have a problem. We had a President leading us to ruin, and rather than engage in a full-court press to get him to change, to force him against himself to do a better job and be a better leader, to stop his recklessly self-destructive course of action and man up and stand up to his opponents, we gave him a pass. The same behavior which elicited righteous indignation when engaged in by John McCain was greeted with a shrug, a smile, a pat on the back, or embarrassed silence when engaged in by President Bush. We lavished him with praise and felt sorry for him instead. The defense of a comforting heroic Bush narrative became more important in the minds of many than facing up to the devastating political damage the real-life President Bush was wreaking. If we can’t even face that this is what happened, and this is still what is happening, what is to keep us from going down the same road in the future? We need to face up to the damage President Bush did, acknowledge our own failure to do so, and resolve to never repeat this mistake again. The stakes are too high, and the situation far too grave, to continue to sugar-coat where we are, or how we got here.