Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 6:53:54 PM
It is impossible to write a definitive judgment on the legacy of President George W. Bush at this time, although there have been many evaluations and retrospectives in the last several months.
Left-leaning folks, especially those who have had Bush Derangement Syndrome from the moment the first chad dangled, will try to blame him as much as possible while denying him as much credit as they can, and some Republicans will defend Bush's every move, even if they would have pitched a fit if it had been done by a Democrat.
We should be vigilant against those who would try to write him into history as the worst President ever. They will try to do so for political expediency, since he is the most recent Republican to serve in that office, and the only President besides Obama that most newer voters will remember with any understanding.
We should also be careful not to let Bush's decisions or tolerations that were decidedly expansive of government be portrayed as proof that limiting government doesn't work.
Those who champion limited government knew that Bush was not a solid conservative way back in the 2000 race. But enough Republicans felt he had the best chance of regaining the Presidency that we as a party opted for a flawed candidate who could win as opposed to a more ideologically pure candidate who would lose.
Evaluating a President is difficult to do when there are many things we don't know. There is information that will remain classified for decades to come. We don’t know how many threats have been neutralized, or what private negotiations, promises, or requests have been made between a President and foreign forces. We don't know the rulings that some of Bush's judicial appointments will make.
Comparing one President to another is difficult when they had different world situations, different Congresses, different court ruling and Constitutional amendments, and different natural disasters with which to contend.
At this time, we can only give a tentative assessment of the Bush Presidency.
And what should be the criteria? That depends on the duties of the President. If I broke my leg during Bush's time in office, it is highly unlikely that it was his fault. Just because something happened while he was President does not mean he should get blame or credit for it. Something has to be the result of his actions or his inaction (when and where he should have acted) for him to deserve the credit or blame. Economic growth or recession is always assigned to a President, but a President can do very little, aside from reducing taxes and government interference, to boost the economy. A President can do much to harm an economy. Aside from government positions, a President does not create jobs.
What are the duties of the President?
-Serve as Commander-in-Chief. This includes protecting our national security, directing the military, controlling our nukes, and securing our borders.
-Sign or Veto Legislation. Could the legislation have been written much better? Was there a veto-proof voting block in Congress?
-Make Appointments/Nominations. This is especially important with judicial nominations, including to the Supreme Court of the United States.
-Execute/Enforce Federal Law. Did the President aggressively crack down on crime and corruption?
-Issue Executive Orders, Pardons, Commutations.
In addition to these duties, a President can offer moral leadership and use the bully pulpit to encourage some things and discourage others; and be the international face of the union.
As Republicans, conservatives, and advocates of limited government, we would tend to also judge a President on how well he or she contributes to limiting government, advances our principles in the public mind and around the world, and strengthens the Republican party by getting Republican elected and raising funds. This is a tricky one, however. One could argue that Democrat Bill Clinton helped to get a conservative majority elected in Congress in 1994, but most of us would not cite Bill Clinton as one of our favorite Presidents.
It is NOT the duty of a President to:
-Ensure you get the education you want at the cost to you that you want.
-Ensure you have a job you enjoy with the compensation you want.
-Ensure you have the kind of house you want at the cost to you that you want.
-Ensure you have the health insurance coverage you want at a cost to you that you want.
-Ensure that everyone else likes you and supports your goals and needs, or that you like you.
-Control the climate of the world.
-Get polar bears to mate.
We are still dealing with mistakes Carter made. Heck, we're still dealing with mistakes LBJ and FDR made. Reagan helped to bring down the Iron Curtain. He also signed an illegal alien amnesty bill that was supposed to solve the problem, but helped to encourage millions more poor, unskilled, and dangerous illegal aliens to flood into our country over the subsequent decades. Bill Clinton signed the DOMA and welfare reform, but let Islamofascist terrorists be treated merely as criminals instead of what they were – a national security threat. Bush didn't make that same mistake, but he has expanded the size of government with domestic programs and spending.
I do believe that Bush was committed to protecting this nation. However, I can't reconcile that with our porous borders. Maybe there is something we don't know yet.
Bush left office with a low approval rating. Congress has a much lower approval rating, but I'm not writing about them. Much of Bush's low approval rating comes from Leftists who would never ever approve of his work. Some of it is from conservatives and libertarians who wanted to see Bush limit government instead of expanding it, or people who are very upset about the illegal alien situation – these are people who are not likely to be favorable towards a Democrat President, either. There's probably a small percentage of that overall disapproval percentage that blame Bush for furthering a conspiracy involving Skull & Bones, New World Order, Illuminati, North American Union, Metric System Adoption, and socks that disappear in the wash.
However, there is probably a portion of that disapproval percentage comprised of people originally ambivalent or even slightly favorable towards Bush who simply grew fatigued of his Presidency. After all, attention spans do seem to be shrinking. Even the most popular television shows usually see a steady decline in ratings after peaking early in their run.
If someone is forming their opinions on Bush mostly on information from the drive-by media, Hollywood, special interest groups, and state university professors - especially the likes of Michael Moore, Bill Maher, the New York Times, The Obama-infatuated Time magazine, advocates for pre-natal or post-natal infanticide, Christophobes, Big Socialist Labor, and gender confusion advocates – then they probably haven't seriously given consideration to Bush being a sincere public servant with some worthwhile accomplishments.
We won't be able to arrive at a well-informed, low-bias perspective on the Bush Presidency for a long time. Right now, we don’t know how much worse things could have been, or what lasting good fruit, if any, his Presidency will produce. There are some things we can discuss – Iraq, Bush's stance of ESCR, his tax cut policies, No Child Left Behind, and any number of other things for which the Left has bashed him. If we're going to promote limited government and national defense, we'll have to stand up for those principles in these cases. But by no means can we pass final judgment - favorable or unfavorable - on his Presidency right now.
Don't let the Left write all of the history books. But concentrate most of your energy on holding our new federal government accountable. We have a lot of work to do.