This was a piece by my friend Glen Asbury. Great writing.
The Legacy of George W. Bush
By Glen Asbury
By Glen Asbury
And now that I have so profusely expressed my gratitude to everyone, I will probably proceed to anger half or more of my readership, which probably isn't the smartest move if I want to continue to win and build an audience! But surely you knew something like this would be forthcoming with George Bush's pending departure for his Crawford ranch in less than 2 months.Truly, though, after 2 horrendous election losses for the GOP, hasn't the time come to be honest about what George W. Bush has bequeathed to us? With ANY President, if we don't forthrightly face the facts of their respective tenures, we not only kid ourselves, but in rewriting history, we discard the lessons that our times should teach to the next generation.
George W. Bush is a kind and decent man, by all accounts. I believe he meant well when he assumed the helm of the country in January 2001. His conduct and yes, his performance in the immediate wake of September 11 was surefooted, confident and comforting.
It is easy for me to cite Bush's two greatest accomplishments. Their names are John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Along with those two good men, a stellar roster of judges now sit on appellate and circuit court benches across the United States. This is no small feat.
With Karl Rove's help, George Bush proved that he was a politician of electoral acumen. Even in the midst of a war on which the American people had already begun to sour, he managed to recapture the White House and expand GOP majorities in both houses of Congress. Such promise...but (and I take no delight in saying this) ultimately unfulfilled.
For George W. Bush has proved through his governance that he is certainly no conservative. Under George W. Bush, discretionary spending (spending above and beyond defense, Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare) has increased at an unprecedented rate, with little to no protest from the Bush White House. And the first 6 years of those budgets were offered by a GOP Congress!
On George W. Bush's watch, we have also seen foreign aid skyrocket, watched our trade deficits soar and inaugurated the largest new government assistance program since LBJ with the advent of the prescription drug benefit. The No Child Left Behind bill cemented the status of a Department of Education that all previous Republican Presidential candidates had vowed to abolish. And in answer to 9/11, a massive new Cabinet-level agency was created, accompanied by the nationalization of airport security.
George W. Bush bet his Presidency on the war in Iraq, a war that he continues to believe was justified. Credit where credit is due; the surge strategy has quelled the sectarian violence for the time being. But what will happen when we leave? Will Sunni and Shia alike lay down their arms? Will the Arab world opt for democracy, and if they offer freedom of the vote to their peoples, will those people elect leaders who model American values? Recent results do not indicate such an outcome, with the resurgence of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Queda. Was it ever truthful to refer to Islam as a "religion of peace?" Furthermore, was it ever realistic to expect a region of the world that has been militantly Islamist for more than a millenium to opt for a Western way of life over the span of a few brief years?
Did we attack Iraq to rid the nation of nuclear weapons? Yet there were none. Was our intent to make Iraq a democratic regime? See the previous paragraph. If we had elected a new Republican President, would we be building on the success of the surge in Iraq by attacking other nations we fear will acquire atomic weaponry? But, how would it even be possible with a Treasury that has been bled dry and an economy that sags lower by the day?
Yet, in the end, the greatest disappointment of the Bush Presidency has occurred in the last few months, with his status as a virtual bystander as one of the greatest taxpayer ripoffs in history has occurred. Virtually none of the many directions in which he and his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, have pivoted has been productive. Now, Paulson says he doesn't even plan to use all of the bailout money, but will leave the second half of it for Barack Obama to spend.
This column by Dick Morris was the final straw that provoked me into expressing these thoughts, which have been building for months now. At the meeting Bush attended with leaders of the G-20 last week, he agreed to subject American financial institutions to the oversight of the global community, to which European Union members are subject. Here is the money quote from Morris:Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.
I voted for George W. Bush 4 times if you count the primaries. Given the choices in those general elections, I would do so again.But, conservatives need to stop being hoodwinked and start speaking up in no uncertain terms when our principles are so repeatedly violated. We must reach a point where it is not enough just to have a place at the White House mess hall and a President who speaks the language of Christian tradition.
Some may doubt this, but I have tried my best to be fair in this discourse, which the Democrats have not been. The Democrat Party has painted George W. Bush as a heartless automaton whose strings were pulled by the evil puppet master, Karl Rove. Need it even be said that this is a grossly unfair caricature?
Yet, we must acknowledge the failures of even a Republican President who, though a kind and compassionate man, simply was not able, at the end of the day, to take the measure of the times and meet it with adequate answers that would send the country on a course of economic growth and renewed moral purpose. Rather, we find ourselves contemplating not only a strongly leftist Democrat President, but a Democrat House with a huge majority and, in all likelihood, a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate. All of this, with the idea of limited government and economic self-sufficiency all but dead and buried.
If this is not the time to assess and provide an accurate picture of where we are and begin to rebuild as a conservative movement, I don't know what is. I believe it can be done! But the first step in that direction is facing ourselves squarely and admitting what has put us into this position in the first place. And I believe that involves a transparent look at the legacy of the President to whom we will bid farewell on January 20.
Conservatism offers the answers this country needs! But, they will be found, in the words of Ronald Reagan, as we "raise a banner with bold colors, not pale pastels."
