Goodbye To All That
Bush got a rude send off from some of the gutless wonders who weren’t able to vote him out. The Hill rounds up some what everyone’s heard already. There were boos from the crowd around the big screens by the World War II monument; ”Nah nah nah nah, hey hey, good-bye” chanted at the helicopter. It’s OK. Anyone who has been in any kind of public life knows that jeers from gutless wonders are a form of praise. Much like having your policies adopted by the opposition. Their views, as we saw, never really mattered, and I’d suggest their jeers, not Bush and his accomplishments in time of war, will become the footnote to history.
Hinderaker at Powerline wrote an appreciation of Bush the other day, weighing the record of accomplishments and failures and evenhandedly calling Bush ”a reasonably good president.” Hinderaker notably gives Bush a pass on economic woes, noting that while presidents often end up wearing them, blame is bi-partisan and widespread. Sounds like a reasonably good assessment. I’d argue that there is one element Hinderaker didn’t measure. The fact that Bush did what he had to do in time of war against widespread electoral, Congressional and foreign opposition, winning re-election, facing down Congress and building several international coalitions for vital global security initiatives in the face of all that opprobrium. He did it all without reacting to the jeers of the crowd or attacking his political adversaries, maintaining his dignity, magnanimous in the face of repeated insults* and he was at the end of two terms successful, leaving his successor a manageable strategy that is on track. I would call that a great president.
And I’d suggest that history will obsess on and even come to love an unlikely champion, a reviled underdog who prevailed, however heavily footnoted the histories may be. My pal Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe in his assessment notes that winning a war in the long run is what will count, and notes one of Bush’s greatest failures:
“I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years,” Bush told the 2000 Republican convention. “I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect.”
Needless to say, things didn’t work out that way. Some of that was Bush’s fault. As The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne wrote the other day, Bush “was better at announcing policies than explaining them” and “never really engaged his opponents.” Despite the tenuous nature of his 2000 victory, he often acted as though he had won a mandate for a sweeping agenda most Democrats opposed.
But it’s also true that many of Bush’s bitterest foes, including some in the media, never gave him a chance. It became commonplace to describe the 2000 election as “stolen” and the Bush presidency as illegitimate. Democratic candidates vied to outdo each other in anti-Bush invective. For many, “Bush hater” became a label to wear with pride.
Jacoby also notes Obama’s promise that the “stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply,” wishing him well in his windmill-tilting campaign to ennoble the low business of politics, but fails to note that Obama’s speech was salted with digs at the president who was sitting next to him.
Sanger at NYT notes that Obama repudiated the Bush era, but failed to say much of substance about what he plans to replace it with.
Mark McKinnon reports on the flight to Texas. Bush went out with his head up, never lowering himself to the level of his adversaries, and with an encouraging, optimistic assessment of the man who replaces him.
OK, some quick news:
Washington Post: Obama suspends the military court at Guantanamo. Why he would want to halt trials of unlawful combatants accused of vile crimes against humanity is beyond me. But unlike Bush, Obama plays to the crowd. Early indicators are he likes being adored, and encourages the adoration. Not a good sign.
via IHT: On Day One, Obama tackles the economy and the war.
* To a fault. Hinderaker criticizes Bush’s poor political skills, and while he did seem to have a tin political ear, in key battles he prevailed, despite as Jacoby notes never having been considered legitimate by his foes. His biggest legislative failure ironically was a bi-partisan effort, the immigration debacle. The administration’s public relations were atrocious from early on, failing to explain or reach out as problems emerged. But in fairness, it was also clear from early on that what the administration was dealing with was large segments of the American people that have rejected the exercise of military power as a legitimate form of statecraft even in time of war. Even many of those who supported military action in dire circumstances felt dirty and rejected it when the moment of crisis seemed to have passed, not recognizing that once you have gotten on that horse, you have to ride it until you are done. Now, we’re curiously faced with the opposite. Someone who claims to have rejected the military option from the start, now embracing it. While I am grateful that Obama seems to have come to his senses, I wonder what kind of principles and backbone he has.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:23 am Comments (6) on Wednesday, January 21, 2009
6 Responses to “Goodbye To All That”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:56 am
Hey, whatever happened to that attack that was supposed to keep Bush in power and allow him to enforce martial law? How many times did I see that prediction from commenters on liberal web sites? He was supposed to suspend the Constitution, declare himself President for the life, etc., whatever it took to keep himself in power forever. Shaking hands with the new guy, wishing him well, and flying off to his secluded ranch in Texas – what’s up with that?
January 21st, 2009 at 10:25 am
Extremely good analysis there in the asterisk (and elsewhere, as always). When the populace has convinced itself that war is unnecessary, explaining foreign policy becomes impossible. I agree that this was a big part of the Bush PR problem. Even when Bush did make a great speech, few people paid attention. Large swaths of our citizenry put their hands over their ears and said “la-la-la I can’t hear you.”
Those who consider themselves our betters—in the infotainment-political complex—were too busy instructing the President to listen to him. Now they think they have found someone who will take direction. I had been encouraged over the past couple of weeks that Obama had outfoxed them on that, that he was simply an excellent salesperson and not a fool. His speech yesterday (and his actions this morning) threw cold water on that.
As you point out, with his history, especially his record on the war, it is hard to imagine how he could have principles. It’s a sad commentary, but I guess I had started to hope Obama was simply a clever pragmatist, telling everyone what they wanted to hear and then steering down the middle of the road. He seems to have an amazing knack to get what he wants from people without doing anything. So I had begun to hope that he was only talk, that he would be Clinton Lite, which seemed survivable.
But if he is going to let the terrorists out of military prison, that might not be survivable. If he really thinks that the measure of whether a government works is whether it directly provides enough goods and services (placing them squarely on the wrong side of the balance sheet, duh), that might not be survivable. And if he really thinks that America has not been leading for the past eight years, I am both seriously offended and gravely concerned.
Thanks for the link to the McKinnon piece. That was quite nice to read.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:28 am
Reacting to Hinderaker’s analysis of Bush’s failure to explain or defend his policies and successes, Jules wrote: “Even many of those who supported military action in dire circumstances felt dirty and rejected it when the moment of crisis seemed to have passed, not recognizing that once you have gotten on that horse, you have to ride it until you are done.”
This called to mind the scene in “Gladiator” where Maximus, in his second contest, battles 1 on 6 and quickly kills all of his opponents. The crowd seems disappointed, so Maximus hurls a bloody sword into the expensive seats and shouts “Are you not entertained?” I think Bush should have responded forcefully to some of the press weenies and critics by shouting “Didn’t we kick the Taliban’s ass? Didn’t we overthrow the Iraqi army in 2 1/2 weeks? Didn’t we scare Libya into abandoning its quest for WMD? Haven’t you been kept safe for 7+ years? Didn’t I run and win, twice, despite touching the 3rd rail? Didn’t I get the largest tax cuts in US history passed? Dammit, didn’t we save tens of thousands in New Orleans who were abandoned by their corrupt and incompetent state and city governments?”
Once the rehabilitation of GWB is complete, and I expect that it will take some time, I think he’ll wind up as an above average President, and most certainly an enormously consequential President (especially when compard to small men like Clinton and Carter).
January 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I expect President Bush’s thoughts as the helicopter took him away included this: “Thank God I’m out of that mess.”
January 21st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
President Bush has more class than Obama and all of his supporters combined and he showed it repeatedly yesterday. From the events of today regarding the military tribunals, I can see that the other shoe is starting to fall and I already miss GWB. I was one of those fools who voted for Gore in 2000 thinking that it was the “hip” thing to do. When I saw that second plane go into the WTC, my first thought was, Thank God Bush is in control. I have been grateful for that sense of security until today. Godspeed to President Bush and here’s hoping for the best in these difficult, dangerous times.
January 25th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Because they had to dig to the back of the paper to find it, and forget about major network coverage entirely. The liberal press were determined to bring down GW at any cost, and they succeeded in the end. God bless you, Mr. Bush, and thanks for all you endured.