Bush and the Very Average Presidency

He’s still got almost a full year left in office, but George W. Bush is already being discussed in the past tense. PoliGazette has an interesting discussion about his legacy. There is, as you might expect, a good deal of disagreement on how Bush rates as a president. My take is this:

Bush has been an average president during extraordinary times. During his presidency, we suffered the worst attack on American soil and the nation’s worst natural disaster — neither was preventable by the president (although a lot of people like to argue otherwise). Both could only be responded to and that’s how Bush is and will be judged. He did great after 9/11 and then that trailed off in the lead up to and invasion of Iraq. He and everyone else did poorly after Katrina. My guess is a lot of our presidents would have had a similar performance with errors befitting their own weaknesses.

Domestically, he’s had about as many hits and misses as any other contemporary president. And, with the exception of a few notable policies like stem cell research, he’s followed a decidedly mainstream series of policies. The economy is not looking fantastic right now but, if you’re going to blame Bush for the current dip, you have to credit him for how quickly and thoroughly we climbed out of the 2001 recession. Again, a pretty average result.

As much as some may argue otherwise, he hasn’t been a terrible president. He has, however, been a very clumsy one, generally unable to rally the nation and frequently creating division where such divides were unnecessary and avoidable. He’s a man of big ideas but has not the capacity to express those ideas clearly. As a result, he’s too often relied on the tricks of marketing rather than on honest persuasion. When he has made a good case – such as the need to modernize social security now before there’s a crisis – he’s often lost because he’s squandered too much political capital on other matters.

There has been and still continues to be much hyperbole in the negative critiques of Bush. A fair number of people hate him, often with little rationality. Many others just strongly dislike him. Had Bush not so readily pursued politics of division to win elections and push through controversial policies, there would not have been such fertile ground for the Bush haters. Bush has helped spawn the very negativity that now attacks him from multiple sides. Those attackers in turn have made it almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion on Bush’s merits.

And yet, what has really left the Bush legacy so meek (at least to our contemporary eyes) are the times in which he served. When an average leader faces extraordinary times, the results will be unsatisfactory. The vast majority of leaders are average and there is no evidence we as a nation would have faired any better or been any more pleased under the leadership of a different man. I say that not to defend Bush but to put his presidency in perspective.

Our times are still extraordinary. Who amongst the candidates could be a leader of rarer ability? That’s really the most important question before us.

We Interupt This Election to Bring You ... The President of the United States

While we’re all bickering over who should be the next president, the current president still has a few things to say. Of course, we’ve heard almost all of it before.

Bush is against taxes. He’s in favor of continuing military operations in Iraq. He’s theoretically in favor of combating global warming but is against doing anything that could conceivably hurt business. He’s for education spending, particularly for helping out faith-based schools. And on and on.

He did encourage quick passage of the stimulus package – proving once again he’s about as fiscally sound as a teenager with Daddy’s credit card (with this congress, he’s in good company). He also came out against earmarks, although that emphasis was probably added as a way to focus criticism on the Democratic congress and their quickly broken promise of significantly curtailing such budgetary tricks.

Bush has always been a man of big ideas but tonight felt quiet and small. A lame duck president facing an oppositional congress has little hope of achieving anything significant in his final year. He can only reaffirm his priorities while reminding everyone the next guy (or gal) has yet to take office. Bush did just that and nothing more.

Historians will long debate this president’s legacy but one thing is inarguable: the man has great confidence in his own judgment. Right or wrong, good or bad, he’s standing firm until the end. Those crying for change will get no satisfaction until the next president takes over.

"George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party"

So says Peggy Noonan. Over his tenure, Bush has fractured the party’s coalitions and set them against one another. The result is the contentiousness now seen in the nomination process.

Too Much Symbolism, Not Enough Statesmanship

The Democrats have passed their Iraq withdrawal bill. Next step: a presidential veto.

Symbolically, the bill achieves the important goal of proving the Democrats are serious about ending our military involvement in Iraq. But symbolism is just a political tool. Real change requires statesmanship and there’s far too little of that quality in either Congress or the White House.

Neither side seems willing to admit the other side has truth to speak. The White House seems incapable of advancing anything other than militaristic solutions and the Democrats seem incapable of recognizing that quick withdrawal is a reckless gambit that would very likely end in horrible Iraqi bloodshed and the need for a future intervention.

Just once I would love to hear a leading Democrat say “Bush is right that Iraq’s stability is essential to our national security. But his solutions are misguided and have served to exacerbate the problems we face. We must demand a change of course.” Someone eloquent like Barack Obama could even point out that we have a moral responsibility to not abandon the Iraqis to the blood-thirst of terrorist outsiders and vengeful sectarians.

Yet the Democrats choose the easy path of “withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal.” That may play well amongst the rabid base and vapid press, but it makes for poor statesmanship.

The Mighty Fall and We Can't Turn Away

The criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales continues to increase. Four years ago, the Bush administration would have escaped such a situation unscathed. In fact, they would have turned the whole thing against their opponents and counted the matter a victory.

Now they can't even get the dang thing out of the news. Even their most ardent supporters are left with no better defense than feeble cries of "Clinton did it too!" Things aren't good in Bushland when you have to hide behind Clinton.

And all of this is exactly why us politics-junkies stay hooked. The storylines are classic, the characters are fantastically flawed and the gamesmanship stunning to watch. It's like Greek drama played for keeps. It's like Shakespearean football. And, best of all, it's Important (capital I).

The underlying drama is what makes the Gonzales case fascinating. How has one of the most effective and cut-throat political operations in history become so impotent? It has a little to do with the war. It has a little to do with the Democratic majority. But it has a lot to do with the nature of power and folly and the inevitable declines written into the meta-narrative of our political system.

We watch because it matters. But we're entranced because it's good drama.

A Snoozer of a Scandal

Maybe I’m a bit of an idiot, but I’m having trouble following the scandal over fired U.S. attorneys. As best as I can tell, a lot of people have fallen all over their feet but no one has broken any laws. Is this a case of clumsy politics or is there more to it?

I’m not the least bit surprised that the Bush administration would use its power to play petty political games. Nor am I surprised that Attorney General Gonzales would execute a political strategy hatched while he was White House counsel. The whole matter is distasteful. But can Congress do anything more than thwack Rove and Gonzales on the knuckles?

Perhaps Gonzales perjured himself by answering questions on the matter during is AG confirmation hearing? Is that even provable? Much of this story is being played out through the modern scandal-enhancement system we all call e-mail. But do any of those emails prove wrongdoing or are they just another example of political callousness?

I don’t know. I feel like I need to read 30 articles to sort it all out. This is just not a very gripping scandal. But maybe, as I said, I’m a bit of an idiot.

State of the Union -- Quick Thoughts

Some quick thoughts on President Bush’s the State of the Union address:

Healthcare: I was glad to see him place this issue right up front. In general, I agreed with all his proposals. The tax break for those paying for their own insurance is an idea way past due. Although the poorest Americans who pay little in taxes will not gain much from the plan, many other Americans will. It’s a commonsense solution that won’t solve the big problems in healthcare but will at least ease the pain.

Government Spending: Bush’s desire to curb the use of earmarks and make them less secretive is an easy bit of bipartisanship. His suggestions are pretty much what Speaker Pelosi has proposed. That’s fine. There’s no need for the ridiculous number of earmarks Congress now uses. Nor is it a good idea that many of those earmarks are never voted on or even included in the bill put before the President.

Bush’s call to reduce the deficit and balance the budget is an always popular statement. I’ll believe it when I see it. I doubt anyone in Congress or the White House actually has the guts to eliminate many of the bloated spending initiatives. But I’m a firm believer that raising taxes should always be a last resort and not an easy out.

Immigration: Bush said we need to have a guest worker program so that our border patrol can focus on catching the drug smugglers and terrorists and not have to deal with those who are only coming here to find work. That’s a good way to position this issue. I’m generally in favor of a guest worker program provided that it requires businesses to pay fair wages so that American citizens can actually compete for jobs with the guest workers.

Environment: I wonder if that was the first national forum in which Bush acknowledged not only the reality of climate change but our ability to do something about it. I have little faith in this administration when it comes to developing a comprehensive energy policy that doesn’t heavily favor oil exploration, but maybe I’ll be surprised. I think alternative fuel research and higher fuel economy standards are smart initiatives but this is not an area where ten minutes of a speech will make any difference. If the White House truly wants to make a difference, the administration will have to focus a lot of time and energy on the matter.

Service: The Civilian Reserve Corps is really the first service-oriented initiative Bush has pushed for. His failure to ask us to serve our country after 9/11 is one of my biggest criticisms of his presidency. I’m not at all sure what this Civilian Corps will do, but at least it’s a non-military way for Americans to serve our nation.

Iraq: He just rehashed what he said the other night. Nothing new and that’s no surprise.

Overall: I always find Bush’s Big Speeches to be full of ideas I like.It’s always the follow-through that seems lacking. Most Presidents propose a lot more than they ever accomplish. But Bush seems to have done less than most. Part of that is because we’ve had a disastrously poor Congress but part of it is that Bush has been unable to effectively lead for much of his presidency. Maybe a Democratic Congress will force him to make the kinds of compromises he’s rejected in the past. We’ll see. Speeches are nice. But action is what matters.

Iraq Surge Focused on Wrong Goal

So, President Bush wants to send more troops into Iraq. The American people don’t agree. Of course, unless the Democrats cut off funding, Bush’s title of Commander in Chief gives him authority to do pretty much as he pleases. Public opinion is a sideshow. The surge is happening.

But it won’t work. The wound of war has festered and Iraq’s gone septic. 20,000 more troops is just a topical treatment and will do little to cure the disease. I hope I am wrong. I hope I’m just a naïve observer who lacks the military experience or political understanding to see the genius of this plan. It’s certainly possible.

I do actually agree with the President on one point: leaving now almost certainly sets us up for a bigger disaster later. Those who think we can get out and suffer nothing more than bruised pride are deluding themselves. If we don’t stay militarily involved, Iraq likely becomes the new Afghanistan – with huge oil reserves.

Where I differ with Bush is in the definition of victory. The President is still seeking a Democracy in Iraq when the real goal should simply be keeping Iraq from becoming an immediate threat to our security. Our presence in Baghdad is only slowing the inevitable collapse into civil war (those who consider the current level of violence a civil war have left themselves with no words to define the real civil war if and when it erupts).

The President may now recognize that mistakes have been made, but he’s yet to wrench himself free of the overly optimistic theories that convinced him of the need for war in the first place. It’s time to stop working towards a Democracy we can’t create. We must focus on our own, more immediate interests. It’s not the outcome we wanted. It’s not an outcome that's particularly noble. But it’s what we have left.

The Left's Limbaugh

A surprising number of people have sent me links to this Keith Olbermann commentary that is one part defense of John Kerry and four parts skewering of President Bush. I suppose the fascination with this video is Olbermann’s seething outrage and rhetorical gymnastics. No one who sent this to me quite knew what to make of it, but they all kind of wanted to like it.

I will say up front that I don’t like Olbermann, just as I don’t like Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh (Olbermann's inverted doppelgangers on the right). At their best, they are harmless windbags, but at their worst they are the band leaders of partisan spite and anger. These newsmen/pundits are the manufacturers of outrage, the knives dividing America.

This commentary by Olbermann, which has a few good points, is rotten at its core. In about eleven minutes of commentary, Olbermann manages to touch upon every failing of the Bush administration and make them sound like a coordinated, well-executed attempt to destroy the Republic. He speaks quickly and plays loose with logic. In the moment, it all sounds splendidly rousing—as if it someone is finally putting into words all that is bothersome with the Bush presidency.

But the speech is ultimately hollow, hung upon careless hyperbole and overwrought angst. It is, like so much of what these newsmen/pundits say, fast food oratory—tasty but unfilling and unhealthy to ingest. Because, really, Olbermann doesn’t have a point outside of the basic “Bush is a lying incompetent” refrain repeated ad nauseam by his critics. The rest is window dressing meant to incite rather than inform.

And that’s the problem. Olbermann incites and then signs off, leaving sympathetic listeners filled with outrage but possessing no outlet. He doesn’t ask anything of his viewers except for them to be angry. And where does this anger go? Hard to know. But it is rare that anger is well-focused. And rarer still that it helps heal rifts or solve problems.

I’m sure there are those who are glad Olbermann is around—he really is the first leftwinger who can match the oratorical skills of the Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s. But he also matches their self-indulgence, their hubris, their false outrage and their divisiveness. Americans listen to these guys because they appear to be speaking a beautiful truth. But they are merely modern day sirens luring us onto the rocks.