The Bravest President

NNow when he is at his lowest point yet in the polls is the time for those who love and admire President Bush to say so. Depending on the final success of his already successful campaign to bring the rudiments of democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, George W. Bush, #43, may go down as a truly great president, who against fierce odds turned the entire Middle East in a new, more democratic, and more creative direction.

But I do not want to argue here the question of his greatness (I have heard voices call him the worst ever) because the question of ranking is above my pay grade and my foresight.

What I do want to argue is that, after Washington and Lincoln, Bush is the bravest of our presidents. He has faced the most intense fire, hatred, contempt, heavily moneyed and bitterly acidic partisan opposition, underhandedness, betrayal, of any president in the last hundred years. He has faced hostility over a longer time, in possibly the most dangerous period of international warfare in our national history. He has remained constant, firm, decided, and generous (to a fault) with his opponents.

He has faced almost unbroken contempt from the academy, from the mainstream press, from Democratic elites, from Moveon and all the other holders of the Democratic-party purse strings, from the Democratic Congress, from his treacherous (if not treasonous) Central Intelligence Agency, and from many levels of the permanent State Department. Almost every day, he has been pummeled and undermined by powerful forces of American power. Still, he has stayed firm, with clear arguments, and an even clearer vision.

On the number-one issue facing the nation—the war declared upon us by fascists who pretend to be religious—he has not wavered, he has not bent, he has stayed on course and true.

In Iraq, civil society, nearly comatose under Saddam Hussein, is today alive and full of vitality. Newspapers and television and magazines are full of diversity and energy, political parties multiply, private associations are functioning by the thousands, most of the country is more secure than some American cities. Iraqi exiles from around the world, far from fleeing, are coming back in droves.

In Paris, France, more cars may have been set on fire this past year than car bombings in Baghdad. In the decade of the Algerian war some time ago there may have been more bombings in France per week than there are now in Iraq. A tiny band of extremists, led by a crafty but crazed Jordanian, are still capable of impressive resourcefulness and ruthless killing, especially within camera reach of the hotels in Baghdad, where the American press is bunkered down. But they represent only a small fringe of Iraqi voters—and of course they loathe democracy with all their writhing intestines.

Despite the depredations, beheadings, and homicide bombings aimed at American public opinion, and especially elite opinion, President Bush has bravely kept his focus on eliminating one by one the dwindling band of terrorists, on the reconstruction of Iraqi civil society, and on the ability of Iraqi parties to broker and bargain and argue themselves into consensus in a political manner.

Whatever American voters may say of him to opinion pollsters—and his polls are now very low indeed—the survival of democracy in Iraq will in the future count as an enormous achievement. Moreover, the exchange in Arab minds of the "big idea" of democracy for the grand illusions of the past (Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, Baathist dictatorship, pan-Arabism), may a generation from now confer on President Bush the unmistakable honor of having been one of those presidents who actually changed the course of history. A president who changed the course of history, yes—and also one who did so against unprecedented opposition at home, bitter and hysterical opposition, even from those who were formerly of the party of democracy, human rights, and international outreach.

It takes more bravery to continue walking calmly through immense hostility at home, than to face down a foreign foe, with a united nation at one's back. This, as I say, is a very brave president.

It may also turn out that, despite currently swirling furies, the president's stout refusal to be merely partisan or to throw red meat to some of his best supporters (he knew as well as anybody what they most wanted now), alongside the five interlinked courses of action he proposed, will have empowered a much more thorough immigration reform than seemed possible even four weeks earlier.

Despite a normal diet of failures and setbacks, common to all presidents, it is also worth counting up his steady, always surprising successes in cutting taxes, in reshaping the Supreme Court, in getting personal Social Security accounts and personal medical accounts on the agenda of public discussion (the first president since Roosevelt to touch the third rail and live to tell of it), and in presiding over the most amazing economy in the world during the past six years.

Polls may be fickle. Notable accomplishments endure, as rock-solid facts. The full record of this president may yet turn out to be as highly ranked as his bravery is bound to be.

If you were in his shoes, would you not prefer the fame of 30 years from now to popularity in your own time? Being popular is neither within one's own control nor, in the larger scheme, a goal worth pursuing. Doing the right thing steadily, as best one can, is.

— Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak's own website is www.michaelnovak.net.

In a word - YES.

So was offering amnesty to the illegals a brave thing for Reagan to do, or not so brave?

He has FAILED to protect our borders

So did Reagan, the one you were holding up as an example of the brave man that Bush is not. Would you like to retract that?

Bush is not taking a beating from the Dems - they never liked him anyway.

Of course they didn't like him. Doesn't mean he isn't taking a beating from them.

Bush is taking a beating from people like me - conservatives who nominated. supported and elected him - TWICE.

I was among that group and would do it again. That doesn't mean I agree with everything Bush does. The plain fact is, there will never be a president that you will agree with 100% of the time.

I'm no troll.

I don't recall saying you were. But you may be one of those who is living in that dream world where the president does everything you want him to do all the time. You know, that one where you and only you get to decide who is a 'true conservative' and who is not?

I haven't left Bush, nor have the majority of conservatives who think like me. He left us.

Post a link to any speech Bush made during the campaigns where he said he was going to do what you want about immigration. Of course, you cannot. So he didn't leave you - you left him.

"So was offering amnesty to the illegals a brave thing for Reagan to do, or not so brave?"

I guess you don't listen to Mark Levin who was involved with the Simpson Mazzoli Bill. That bill did grant amnesty but there were provisions tied into that bill which enforced laws against illegal invaders.

This administration, Clinton and Bush I refused to enforce those provisions. The problem with illegal invaders under Reagan was nowhere near the avalanche of illegals now pouring into the U.S. Our Southern Border effectively has ceased to exist, and the present Administration is predominantly to blame.

"So did Reagan, the one you were holding up as an example of the brave man that Bush is not. Would you like to retract that?"

No. Read the above.

"Of course they didn't like him. Doesn't mean he isn't taking a beating from them."

Right. He got elected in spite of them because of US, his conservative base, which has made it more than clear to Bush what we think about his romance with Vicente Fox and his army of invaders. And Bush isn't taking a beating from the Dems on his Amenity program. As a matter of fact Kennedy helped draft it and Jimmy Carter just praised it.

"I was among that group and would do it again. That doesn't mean I agree with everything Bush does. The plain fact is, there will never be a president that you will agree with 100% of the time."

Given the choice, so would I. Obviously two intelligent people aren't going to agree with each other on everything and I don't expect the President to agree with me on everything. What I DO expect from him is to fulfill his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes defending our borders. He has failed to do so. This is not minor issue problem - its a major issue which most Americans vehemently disagree with Bush and his advisers on. He and his advisers are defying the expressed wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans on a very significant social and constitutional issue.

I am getting sick and tired, personally, of having to select the lesser of the two evils in electing candidates. Candidates for the Office of President have become more mediocre year by year: Bush I, Bush II, McCain, Kerry, Clinton, Hillery, Algore, Carter, etc. etc. Most of these people couldn't run a department store successfully, but they have the money and support of special interests so they become candidates. The system is broken.

"You know, that one where you and only you get to decide who is a 'true conservative' and who is not?"

If I were the only one saying this, I'd admit I needed a reality check. But others are too - most Americans plus people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc. etc - all individuals with sterling conservative credentials.

"Post a link to any speech Bush made during the campaigns where he said he was going to do what you want about immigration. Of course, you cannot. So he didn't leave you - you left him."

He gave a speech I recall, about protecting America from terrorists - and any Islamic nut job who really wants to can land in Mexico at this point and sneak across our border. Perhaps many of them have.

Besides, he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as a President - TWICE and see my comments about that above.

He left US.

That bill did grant amnesty but there were provisions tied into that bill which enforced laws against illegal invaders.

So you'd be okay with Bush granting amnesty but adding provisions enforcing laws against illegal invaders? By the way, the provisions enforcing laws didn't seem to work too well. Why not just make them enforce the existing laws instead of adding provisions to enforce them?

He got elected in spite of them because of US, his conservative base

What 'us' are you talking about? Bush never promised to build a wall and all that when he was campaigning. So exactly which of his promises did you base your vote upon? (Not something you want him to do, but something he actually said he would do.)

and any Islamic nut job who really wants to can land in Mexico

Actually, I read a book called "Disinformation." Given Mexico's stringent laws and enforcement, the terrorists would rather come through Canada (and have). I've never seen anything indicating any terrorist ever came across the border with Mexico.

I'm all for building a wall, hiring more border patrol agents, etc.. We need to seal our borders. But I think some of the anti-Bush rhetoric over this border issue is simply idiotic.

The reality is, no matter what we do, if a terrorist wants in this country, they will find a way. Letting the terrorists know we will come after them is at least as important as sealing our borders. Bush has done an outstanding job of 'communicating' that to the terrorists.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.