| Tuesday, December 05, 2006 |
| Why is this man sobbing? |
 Perhaps because as every day ticks by, the haunting realization dogs him that had the son he wept for this week in Florida -- Gov. Jeb Bush -- won his gubernatorial race in 1994, and had George W. lost in Texas that year, he might have a son in the White House who would at least uphold the family name and honor with a reputation for competence and ideological consistency, if not compassion or brilliance or whatever elusive quality was possessed by the Great Men of the White House.
Surely, the elder Bush must realize that Jeb, though he too was an ideologue on Iraq (it was he who in 1997 signed the organizing documents for the Project for the New American Century, not George W., who displayed few intellectual gifts and even fewer political ambitions before he ran for Texas governor.) And even if President Jebbie had opted to attack Iraq, at least he might have asked the old man for a bit of advice from time to time, and executed the war with a bit more ... dare I say, competence...
And Bush I surely knows that for all his faults, and his penchant for the family foible of authoritarianism and testiness, Jebbie is a man who gets things done, or who at least appears to. Jeb's accomplishments in Florida, while wildly divisive (big tax cuts for corporations, giving away the store to the big insurance companies, sapping Medicaid, including cutting off little retarded kids, a massive, onerous school testing regime and the erasure of affirmative action by decree,) he managed to get them done (along with one good thing: he staved off the family yen for oil drilling by keeping Exxon and friends away from the Florida coast.) And even those who loathe Jeb admit he is an intelligent man, very good at hurricane follow-up, and able to make things happen in a legislature controlled by his own party (often by bullying, but hey, it's politics...) So a Jeb version of the Iraq war -- not to mention the Katrina aftermath -- surely would have gone down far differently, for the family, for the country.
Instead, George Herbert Walker Bush can look forward to spending his dotage knocking around the globe with his new son, Bill Clinton (who at least seems to defer to and even dote on him,) helping Junior build a presidential library at his wife's alma mater (with $500 million in Saudi cash) out of a few tattered copies of "My Pet Goat" and that picture of him on Air Force One flying away from the burning twin towers in New York to safety somewhere in the Midwest on 9/11 (or the one of him flying way over New Orleans well after the point where it would have mattered following Katrina), and trying to block out the nightmarish reality that at the end of the day, he may be best remembered for being a good humanitarian in his presidential afterlife, paired with Clinton, whom he once despised ... for beating Saddam Hussein in Kuwait before his son screwed it up in Iraq, and for being the father of the worst ... president... in U.S. history. ... Ever ... Everrrrrrr. Here's historian Eric Foner from this Sunday's WaPo historian op-ed-a-pallooza:
At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply not up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism or to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded themselves with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866, respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.
Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall Street Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.
Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S. citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.
Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law. Ouch. Still, it's not like mean things about the Dubya presidency havn't been said before. Historians have had Dubya gunning for James Buchanan's spot at the bottom of the presidential pile for a while now. But the latest bashfest had to have a special sting for the old man, who has recently found a new son who actually seems to need him, and as he watches his favorite boy end his political career (at least for now), well short of the mark he and the family had envisioned for him.
Which leads me to my favorite "Bush as worst president ever" headline: Bush: At least he’s not Nixon. And that's one of the kinder articles. A clip:
Comparisons of presidents across different eras are typically the stuff of parlor games, not serious historical study. But if anyone can be said to deserve the mantle of the worst, it's Nixon. Indeed, looking at his disastrous presidency may help put Bush's failures in perspective.
Like Bush, Nixon fancied himself a "wartime" president in the manner of Franklin D. Roosevelt and therefore entitled to deference in the face of a national emergency -- a view at odds with how most Americans see these controversial, far-off conflicts. And while the oft-cited analogies between the Vietnam and Iraq wars tend to be glib, each conflict has significantly determined its president's reputation. Like Nixon, Bush has heeded Henry Kissinger's advice not to withdraw from a quagmire, preferring to brand critics cowards or traitors. Like Nixon, Bush has also sought to conceal from the public the full scope of the U.S. commitment. Under blanket assertions of "national security" meant to end public debate, he has used Nixonian wiretapping to achieve his ends. These decisions will surely stain his legacy.
But can we conclude that Bush's war policy is worse than Nixon's? However toxic the fallout from Iraq, it's hard to imagine that it could greatly exceed the damage wrought by Vietnam, the wounds from which are still raw 30 years later, as its role in the 2004 presidential election showed. (On the other hand, Nixon can't be blamed for starting his war, whereas Bush initiated his -- albeit with substantial backing from Democrats.) Bush's view of power and his iron-fisted manner of governance also come from the Nixon playbook. Karl Rove, who headed the College Republicans during Watergate, sought to complete Nixon's mission of building a permanent Republican majority. In Nixonian fashion, the Bush-Rove strategy has been to use bullying to stifle opposition: demonizing the news media, discrediting policy experts, disdaining the separation of powers. Bush's theory of a "unitary" executive power is little more than a restatement of a Nixon utterance: "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
But again, if Bush has given Nixon good chase when it comes to undemocratic hardball politics, he hasn't surpassed the master. Nixon's belief in the inherent legality of his own actions led him to authorize burglaries and approve criminal acts -- paying hush money, trying to get the CIA to lie to the FBI -- to thwart the Watergate investigation. And these were only the most well-known and well-documented of the counts against him in the articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. Yes, there's the fact that Bush didn't authorize actual burglaries. Cold comfort, I'm sure, to the man who scratched and strove to become Nixon's vice president, only to lose out to that milquetoast Gerald Ford... Such a life. So many disappointments.
It's enough to almost make you pity the old man. Or at least to see why he was sobbing.
Oh, and check the letters to the editor from E&P. Some of them are downright brutal. And there was one op-ed saying Bush could rebound with the benefit of time, but the guy who wrote it used to be a Bush flak ...er... speechwriter, so reprinting that would be like getting your Iraq information from Fox News, and who needs that?
Tags: Bush, Iraq, Bush 41, Worst president ever |
posted by JReid @ 7:46 PM   |
|
|
|
|