George Bush and History
Joseph McHugh
May 09, 2007
How will George Bush be viewed by history? No one can ultimately answer that question except the future historians themselves. But we can gather that the dominant trend of liberals running our intellectual culture is not going to end any time soon. So likely it is that the liberal historians will write of him as liberals now think of him: a bumbling incompetent, who by the way was very dangerous. After all, these are the same folks who still only describe Ronald Reagan's greatest achievement as being a genial, optimistic guy.
But we do not have to wait on the verdict of these self-appointed guardians of history to assess the Bush presidency.
The two temporal yardsticks to judge George Bush are the short term and the long term, but what is the underlying value by which we can judge the worth of the Bush presidency? The question boils down to: What is the rational purpose of a Presidency, and what are the rational expectations we can have of the office?
To those who believe that the role of government is to preserve, protect and defend the freedom of the individual, one standard will apply. To those who view the government as being the means to achieving ends higher than the individual, namely the good of "society," (ours or others) another standard will apply.
The problem is that Bush has pushed both views with abandon. While no President for some time has talked more about property rights, or had the temerity to push for individual retirement accounts for Social Security, Bush also signed into law the most gargantuan expansion of the welfare state since the "Great Society," programs of the 1960's: the Medicare prescription drug benefit. With Sarbanes-Oxley businesses are more regulated than ever. While overseas he started out with a "Forward Strategy of Freedom" his Iraq policy has devolved into Democracy at any price. Democracy is not the same as individualism. The former seeks the "greater good" of all; the latter says "hands off" my life.
The problem with being muddled is that it's hard to please everyone at the same time. Bush, unless in the next year and a half he changes dramatically, will probably best be judged (by rational historians) as a conventional president who neither terribly failed nor terribly succeeded. Historians may note his loud pronouncements of policies such as preemptive strikes, and the aforementioned Social Security policy, but without follow up or success neither will ultimately be remembered. The Iraq war, unlike the Vietnam War, has not electrified the nation (although it certainly has its attention) and will not dramatically change military or foreign policy in the future. Bush likely is to be remembered as the President who happened to be there when we were attacked. With Iraq soon to be an ally of Iran, with Iran soon to be a nuclear club member, with Syria murdering with impunity, and with the Madrassah's going full steam ahead with their hatred, not much has changed on the terrorism front.
Bush could pull off a dramatic surprise change in the next two years. One great opportunity for him would be to once and for all eliminate the problem of Iran. Iran, the chief sponsor, inspiration and financier of terrorism in the world today has been at war with the U.S for nearly thirty years, and now as this criminal nation lurches forward with its plans for nuclear weapons, the time for Washington to act is now. Bush could gain the thanks of history (although the liberals wouldn’t write it that way) were he to act decisively and effectively with this threat. But with the "realists" in his administration, led by Condoleezza Rice pursuing negotiations with Iran, the prospects of a Bush attack grow dimmer. And a year and a half is not a long time, and with Democrats in control of the Congress, Bush has less freedom to act.
The individual is no freer. "Society," whatever that is, seems no worse. Ronald Reagan, love him or hate him, changed the course of history. George Bush, like his father, probably will leave little if any trace in the nation's future.
But we do not have to wait on the verdict of these self-appointed guardians of history to assess the Bush presidency.
The two temporal yardsticks to judge George Bush are the short term and the long term, but what is the underlying value by which we can judge the worth of the Bush presidency? The question boils down to: What is the rational purpose of a Presidency, and what are the rational expectations we can have of the office?
To those who believe that the role of government is to preserve, protect and defend the freedom of the individual, one standard will apply. To those who view the government as being the means to achieving ends higher than the individual, namely the good of "society," (ours or others) another standard will apply.
The problem is that Bush has pushed both views with abandon. While no President for some time has talked more about property rights, or had the temerity to push for individual retirement accounts for Social Security, Bush also signed into law the most gargantuan expansion of the welfare state since the "Great Society," programs of the 1960's: the Medicare prescription drug benefit. With Sarbanes-Oxley businesses are more regulated than ever. While overseas he started out with a "Forward Strategy of Freedom" his Iraq policy has devolved into Democracy at any price. Democracy is not the same as individualism. The former seeks the "greater good" of all; the latter says "hands off" my life.
The problem with being muddled is that it's hard to please everyone at the same time. Bush, unless in the next year and a half he changes dramatically, will probably best be judged (by rational historians) as a conventional president who neither terribly failed nor terribly succeeded. Historians may note his loud pronouncements of policies such as preemptive strikes, and the aforementioned Social Security policy, but without follow up or success neither will ultimately be remembered. The Iraq war, unlike the Vietnam War, has not electrified the nation (although it certainly has its attention) and will not dramatically change military or foreign policy in the future. Bush likely is to be remembered as the President who happened to be there when we were attacked. With Iraq soon to be an ally of Iran, with Iran soon to be a nuclear club member, with Syria murdering with impunity, and with the Madrassah's going full steam ahead with their hatred, not much has changed on the terrorism front.
Bush could pull off a dramatic surprise change in the next two years. One great opportunity for him would be to once and for all eliminate the problem of Iran. Iran, the chief sponsor, inspiration and financier of terrorism in the world today has been at war with the U.S for nearly thirty years, and now as this criminal nation lurches forward with its plans for nuclear weapons, the time for Washington to act is now. Bush could gain the thanks of history (although the liberals wouldn’t write it that way) were he to act decisively and effectively with this threat. But with the "realists" in his administration, led by Condoleezza Rice pursuing negotiations with Iran, the prospects of a Bush attack grow dimmer. And a year and a half is not a long time, and with Democrats in control of the Congress, Bush has less freedom to act.
The individual is no freer. "Society," whatever that is, seems no worse. Ronald Reagan, love him or hate him, changed the course of history. George Bush, like his father, probably will leave little if any trace in the nation's future.
Print
Email
