Don’t mis-underestimate Dubya

The Indian Express ^ | March 01, 2006 | Jaithirth Rao

[bayourant]

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88747 As we prepare to welcome the leader of the world’s most powerful republic, it behooves us to make sure that we grapple with facts, not just biased opinions. It is unfortunate that so much of the information about the US is derived by our elites from the eastern seaboard, Left-leaning media who are on the opposite side of the American political spectrum from George W. Bush and who therefore have a vested interest in opposing and disparaging him.

The images of Bush they have succeeded in planting internationally are that Bush is dim-witted, a simple-minded religious fanatic, a supporter of a rapacious plutocracy. None of these are based on facts. But like all propaganda, there is a feeling that repeated often enough, loudly enough, it’ll become the accepted truth.

Let us take a look at the facts. The Bush family is as elitist as they get in America. Bush’s grandfather was a Republican senator from Connecticut. His son, George Bush Sr, took the decision literally to move the family “west”. This may seem like an accident. But what an intelligent and fortuitous accident it was. They moved to the southwest just as this part of the US was gaining demographically. The likelihood of a president of the US bobbing up from Connecticut, with its declining population, is pretty low. Texas on the other hand has been for the last 35 years on the rise economically and politically. The Bush family moved to Texas just as the state was moving from over a century of Democratic domination to becoming a bastion of the Republicans. Incidentally, a branch of the Bush family represented by the president’s younger brother has moved to Florida, another state with burgeoning demography and a flourishing economy. The family’s uncanny ability to anticipate the future and “move” to where the future will happen needs no better proof.

President Bush attended Yale and Harvard Business School. Critics will of course make snide remarks that this was on account of family connections. While that may help to some extent, to be dismissive of his attendance of top-class academic establishments would arguably be one more silly under-estimation of the man. Despite representing what is viewed by many as a political party committed to the white Protestant cause, Bush has reached out to the Hispanic community with intelligence and sensitivity. If nothing else, this represents another wise anticipation of demographic inflexion. The Republican Party would condemn itself to irrelevance if it fails to co-opt the growing Hispanic population. At considerable risk to his popularity with xenophobes within his own party, Bush has proposed a Guest Worker programme which is immigrant-friendly and responds to the concerns of the Hispanic voter. His ability to re-fashion himself as a “non-elitist” or to convert a marginal first term victory into a decisive one in the second round are not acts of the politically inept. Those who think of him that way seriously “mis-underestimate” him!

Bush has shown a broad-mindedness and inclusiveness in his appointm-ents that completely demolishes the argument that he is merely a mouthpiece for evangelical Christians. He may be a sincere, pious, believer in his faith, but he’s consistently stood for the separation of church and state and for the inclusiveness of all groups. This may be for principled reasons or because he his politically smart. The net effect has been positive. His executive and judicial appointments embrace Catholics (also new entrant into the stable of Republican supporters), Jews and African-Americans. Note that both his secretaries of state (the senior-most cabinet members) have been African-American. His surgical approach to Senator Trent Lott when he resurrected long-forgotten racial antagonisms is a classic example of heightened sensitivity.

In foreign policy, Bush has the reputation deservedly or otherwise of cold-shouldering Europe (or is it just Old Europe?) and reaching out to China and India. Again, one sees the same knack of grasping the future rather than swimming in the glue of the past. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and he have created an Indo-US CEO forum. Contrast this with Chirac’s clumsy response to the Mittal-Arcelor deal. China is the economic powerhouse of the future and India is headed the same way. Bush’s visit to China highlighted this despite the dozens of reservations and differences on Taiwan and other irritants. He was warmly received by the Chinese elite, an important lesson for his Indian counterparts.

As a betting man, the very fact that Bush is positive about India means that it is quite in order to go long on the Indian stockmarket. His ability to spot the trend has a tested track record. It is equally important to pay attention to the fact that almost instinctively he is on our side on a variety of issues, be it the approach to Islamist terrorism or the approach to nuclear power as a viable, even desirable energy source for the world. He has maintained a clear distance from ecology fundamentalists who would deny India nuclear fuel and at the same time hector us not to burn high-sulphur coal. How exactly are we supposed to provide for an energy-starved population who do not aspire to remain permanently poor?

The one argument I find most entertaining is that he is doing all this for the good of the US. Of course he is. That is what makes his approach so credible and self-sustaining. He has been elected by Americans to further their interests and that’s what he is doing. If he can find that doing business with India makes sense within that agenda, it seems to me that we have all the elements of a relationship not based on frothy rhetoric but on sound convergence of interests. It is in this spirit of intelligent practicality, conscious of our vital interests that we should “do business” with this pragmatic Texan.

Jaithirth Rao is chairman and CEO, Mphasis

[MikeHu]

As Alan Greenspan would note on entering their offices for an interview, "The stench is palpable."

[Blue State Insurgent]

2 years after Bush got elected i started voting Republican.

[Hill of Tara]

Thanks for the ping, carrotandstick. That was a great article, and very accurate. Pres. Bush has been very inclusive in trying to unite people, and bring new supporters into the Republican Party.

Slowly the Democrats are losing support from groups that once stood solidly behind them (though the Muslims, who used to not vote at all, or vote Osama or whatever, now vote 93% Democrat)


Interestingly enough, most Asian-Americans are Republican (excluding the Muzzies of course.)

regards,

Hill of Tara

[AmeriBrit]

"Where are the buses taking people back?"


I can only 'assume' that you don't live anywhere near the California portion of the Mexican border as many buses and flights leave everyday taking illegals back to Mexico.

Since this appears to be one of your main gripes, and justly so, perhaps you could educate me on what clinton did during his 8 years in office to rectify the 'illegal' border crossing problem.

Where you got the idea that property values have plummeted I don't know, as ours has grown in leaps and bounds for the past five years and still climbing.

[Fruitbat]

I don't know where you're coming up with some of the things you're implying about my statements.

You're a red herring machine. ; )

[Fruitbat]

Look, some people just can't debate facts and apparently you're one of those people.

You have to run from that question because to answer it would be to admit that no one cared about our "borders" as recently as 2004.

I agree, entirely! So what! NO ONE ELSE sits in the Oval Office. Is your narrowly focused brain so incredibly obsessed with politics that pragmatism eludes you like water flowing through a window screen?

Dang son! Some of the vacuousness here and sheer and utter absence of logis is stunning!

So in your world, b/c the President didn't campaign on something, that means he's powerless. Because the borders are a problem and he hasn't even admitted it to anything close to the ACTUAL extent of the problem.

Man, I think this is where a good piece of hickory or a 2x4 may be necessary. Pardon me if I don't respond to your inciteful nonsense anymore.

[Fruitbat]

Where you got the idea that property values have plummeted I don't know, as ours has grown in leaps and bounds for the past five years and still climbing.

Right! Another utterly one-dimensional post.

Got it! The entire border resides within 20 miles of your experiences.

Got it! ; )

Ever heard of a small state called Texas!

Again, I enjoy a good debate and open discussion, but this nonsense is retarded.

[Fruitbat]

Oh yeah, and there aren't hundreds of thousands, of illegals successfully putting roots down here every year.

Could have fooled us way up here in the DC metro area.

[ohioWfan]

No, on "homeland security" he has credibility issues! Starting a war in another country is not homeland security directly.

Please tell me where I misunderstand this statement.

You said that President Bush has 'credibility issues' on homeland security, correct?

And then you said, "starting a war in another country is not homeland security directly."

So to that I responded that we did not, indeed START the war, and that the war in which we are engaged in Iraq is DIRECTLY a homeland security issue.

Please explain where I have misunderstood what you have said.........because you have quite obviously misunderstood what I said.

[Fruitbat]

No thanks...

[Fruitbat]

PS, if you haven't gotten it by now, ...

[ohioWfan]

Running away, are we?

Easier, I suppose, than admitting defeat.

[Southack]

"So in your world, b/c the President didn't campaign on something, that means he's powerless."

No. You're missing the point.

You're blaming the President for not taking action on an issue that only matters to you.

No one campaigned on the "borders" issue in 2004 because no one cared. Well, except for you. And you're upset because your issue isn't at the top of the President's agenda.

Too bad.

President Bush told you what you were going to get with another four years of having him in office. Americans liked what they heard. They re-elected him by a larger margin in 2004 than in 2000.

...and true to form, he's delivering actions in office that match his campaign promises in 2004. People are getting what they voted for.

But you don't care about all of that. You've got your one issue...and anyone who doesn't put your issue first is going to be criticized.

[jwh_Denver]

" Did you make even the least effort to fix things in the Republican Party?"

I still try. I email and fax my Rep (Tancredo, who I like very much but the White House won't let him in the the door) my Senators and various other elected officials. The Republicans are not going to change and if you believe that they will you're a fool.

You've got a nasty wise ass tone in your post.

[jwh_Denver]

"2 years after Bush got elected i started voting Republican."

I'm a conservative.

[jwh_Denver]

"Because you expected him to do liberal things, and he turned out to be a conservative?"

Conservative? LOL! I expected him to be conservative but the guy is a moderate. You have no idea what a conservative is.

[jwh_Denver]

"A prophet is without honor in his own house and his own country. Matt. 13:57"

You just used the Word of God in vain. Bush is no prophet.

[Albion Wilde]

"A prophet is without honor in his own house and his own country. Matt. 13:57" You just used the Word of God in vain. Bush is no prophet.

That is one of the most-quoted lines in the Bible. I am not implying that Bush is a religious prophet. The article pointed out that the Bush family seems to foresee events and make strategic moves ahead of them. It is that point with which I completely agree.

[ohioWfan]

Well, since I've been a conservative for decades (make that almost 5), I'm pretty sure I DO know what a conservative is. The statement I made was rhetorical because you made what seemed a very silly comment about no longer voting Republican after two years of President Bush's first term.

At that time he had over 90% of Republican support, and deservedly so, because he had stood strong for America in the war on terror (which he is still doing), and he had cut our taxes and made multiple pro-life, pro-morality decisions that were very conservative, as well as rejecting Kyoto and the World Court.

As to whether or not he is a conservative down the line, the answer to that is an obvious no. But if you made the decision not to vote Republican ever again after two years, you should have never voted for a Republican before, because he was being as Conservative a President as we had ever had.

And to tell the truth, with the change in the judiciary due to his leadership and conservatism, this country will move more notably to the right because of Bush than it did because of Reagan.

[sonofjoe]

I have less a problem with the DPW ports deal than I do with the overall proliferation of Islam. Muslims, of all nations, have only proven their sheer and utter intolerance for the religions of others. It cannot be any more clear in the Koran that they have no intention with "living in harmony" with people that do not except their "religious" views, which are really more socio-political views.

Either way, Islam has a very identifiable track record of misery, death, and destruction in one form or another. The problems are being created by allowing it to spread to civilized societies that are tolerant, thereby setting themselves up for either something tantamount to a civil war, or domination and oppression. There really aren't too many ways around that.

Some Freepers and posters will jump all over that, but IMO they are people that seem to not think that this country can change drastically as if civilizations, governments, and societies haven't changed themselves, for better or worse on a continual cycle, for as long as the earth and human kind has been around.

We're setting ourselves up for problems there. Islam has no intention of "living in harmony" with anyone but other muslims. Even that has to be questioned.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you contradict yourself in this post. On one hand you advocate the total abstinence from Islam, "shutting our borders to it" if you will, while on the other you blame some for not seeing that change is a necessary evil, and has been for thousands of years. How can America remain one of the 'civilized societies that are tolerant' (which i think is a good thing) while at the same time shut out 1.2 billion of the worlds population?