Posted on 05/23/2006 8:34:45 AM PDT by Pokey78
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.
I like this guy. And I admire his guts, and his decency.
— 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.
These savages are much WORSE in many ways-- they have no fear of dying as they are fighting a holy war, they target and hide behind civilians and other innocents as a tactic, they have no common nation or uniform that can be defeated in a traditional way, and weapons of mass destruction exist that the Nazis never dreamed of.
I think you seriously misunderestimate this enemy.
I have to agree with this - there are too many people here who spew hate at illegal immigrants and consider that their only issue.
Most of the problems they cite would still exist if we threw all the illegals out of the country and stationed people five inches apart at the border to throw people out who tried to come in.
President Bush's fate was to have the war as his big issue. Everything else is secondary. Now, while things are somewhat calm, he's starting to try and rein in spending. It's not going to be easy but at least he's aware of it.
He's definitely shown an impressive grit and determination which I think will serve his place in history very well. Contrast him with Jimmy Carter and you'll get the idea.
D
The President is neither.
Congress has definitely let everybody down.
Bump and continued prayers for our C.I.C. for courage, strength and Divine protection, in Jesus' Name.
Those who constantly look to put their personal politics above all else are simply lesser men / women.
It is an honor to have such a man in office as our POTUS.
Man, oh man! Where have you been?
Your posts remind me very much of another brilliant FR poster (i.e., me).
Who is that masked freeper!
;)
Damn straight !
"What I do want to argue is that, after Washington and Lincoln, Bush is the bravest of our presidents."
I think that after Washington and Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and then Ronald Reagan were the "bravest Presidents".
You might want to re-think that one. The Nazi threat never had the power to project itself across the Atlantic (the fact that the Nazis were defeated much quicker than Al Qaeda has been or is likely to be shows the degree to which Al Qaeda is a more daunting threat) and the Soviets were deterrable.
The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevented the Soviets from ever directly attacking the US or its allies and interests. The Soviets, as brutal as they were at home, at least outside of the Soviet client states maintained a certain level of adherence to international norms, isolated outrageous acts like the shooting down of the Korean airliner notwithstanding (an incident the Soviets were embarrassed by, one by which Al Qaeda would be emboldened and proud of if they had accomplished.)
The Soviets were also very attuned to public opinion in the West and to trying to cultivate something of a positive image, especially in Western Europe. Sure there were proxy wars, but never was the US homeland likely to be attacked.
Do you see any such restraint coming out of Al Qaeda? Are they deterred by the idea of being wiped out or in any way responsive to the idea of Western public opinion, entreatable through diplomatic, economic and cultural mechanisms or accountable to the norms of international law and behavior? Are they bound by treaties or the need to maintain trading relationships to keep their economy afloat? Do they have a basically Western cultural mindset which the Soviets at least had to an extent? Absolutely not! These people are stopped by nothing and there is no behavior or act that they would not employ including if they could the use of a nuclear weapons.
They are driven by a fanaticism the Soviets never had, a fanaticism enlivened by their idea of God and the eternal. The idea of martrydom is part and parcel of Al Qaeda's practice, the idea of killing and dying to win's God favor. Nothing like this ever animated the Soviets. Thinking that by killing you are winning God's favor is a particularly dangerous idea, an idea not likely to be overcome or delegitimized by Western ideals. Religion has a power over the mind of man, both for good and for ill, and in causing him to act that communism never could have had other than among a few elites perhaps.
Sure Al Qaeda doesn't have a large standing army they can invade with or a fleet of nuclear missiles. But it was precisely the fact the US could match that kind of threat man for man, missile for missile that the Soviets were largely kept in check. There is nothing to keep Al Qaeda in check other than our ability to get at them and send them to hell. No, the author is quite right.
Measuring a threat merely by the size of its army is simplistic at best. On September 11th Al Qaeda killed more Americans than the Soviet Army ever did. I see Al Qaeda as being one of the most dangerous enemies America has faced, if not the most dangerous, precisely because there is no regulators or brakes to their behaviors and they are not governed by any need to play to public opinion or to keep to norms of international law and diplomatic behavior. The author is quite right if you stop and think about it.
Why thank you!
Ditto....I think that is how many people feel. Pres. Bush is a great President but only has limited powers.
That is your opinion of which you are in course entitled.
Only history will tell if George Bush will go down as one of the greatest Presidents of all time.
I will say this though, he's got more guts then nearly every Politician on the planet combined.
Well said, MikeA.
As it is the president takes criticism that he isn't deferential enough to Congress. Of course most of that comes from Congress itself. If anything, he's let them get away with too much. But the constitution set up Congress to be a check on the power of the president. Therefore those who have turned on Bush because he isn't imperiously trying to impose his will on Congress seems to forget how our government works.
Being as that's the case there's just no real ability to govern as a "pure" conservative when you're president. There are too many competing interests, votes and voices that you are forced to take into account, to say nothing of public opinion. We don't live in a one party tyrannt state. Presidents are elected not to be ideologues or representatives of one wing of one political party, but to represent the interests of all Americans as much as possible. Sure it's not possible to give everyone everything they want. But neither is it possible to only give one side everything they want either. This is the governing reality the loud talk radio hosts and absolutist grassroots conservatives miss when screaming about the president not doing enough of what they want. They sound like spoiled children demanding "what have you done for me lately" while forgetting all the goodies they've already been given. And this president has given us a lot to be happy about. It's time for some people to grow up and stop acting like petulant children.
Spreading a great article with a BUMP! God bless President Bush. :)
Good article.
I agree with your comments. I am so sick of hearing that Bush is to blame for everything. I, too, believe history will prove that he was one of the greats.
I am not a big fan of politicians, but I am a supporter of President Bush. It does not mean I agree with everything he has done or that I agree with his position on some matters, but in the big picture of the War on Terror and fighting those that would harm us, I think he is doing a remarkable job.
I don't know that I agree with that either.
GW, has been a good President (and I like him) and will go down in history as such.
That's certainly the truth. BTW, I wish the "true conservatives" would get out and elect conservatives at the state and local levels, rather than howling for a quick fix from the Executive. Even in that hot-button issue, immigration, most of the things they are complaining about (welfare benefits for illegal aliens, for example, or "bilingual" education) are done at the state or city level, by their very own governors or city councils. But I guess it's easier to pretend that it can all be fixed by the President from on high, or simply by having your favorite talk radio show host scream louder than anybody else's.
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.