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.
You are in rare form today, Mike. Your post #31 is excellent.
Ditto
Thanks for the ping, Pippin. Superb article and a refreshing thread. :)
More so against the Nazis but it took the Nazis declaring war against us to actually get involved. The America-First movement and Charles Lindbergh, the German-American Bund, and other groups were effective in keeping us out of the war.
We had Communist sympathizers and apologists for the Soviets almost until the fall of the Berlin Wall. Henry Wallace, the McCarthy hearings, the Hollywood Black List, Whitaker Chambers, the Rosenbergs, Gus Hall, Aldrich Ames, Harold J. Nicholson, etc. are just a small sampling of the people and events that undermined our actions against the Communists.
He does not "continually forget his base." This claim is such patent nonsense that, frankly, it makes me question the honesty and/or intelligence of the people who make it.
Time and time again, President Bush as governed from his own deeply held religious and conservative convictions. The list of his conservative achievements is long. There is always more than can be done. Always. But this in no way negates the facts of his conservative achievements in social policy, judicial and other appointments, foreign policy, and a host of other areas.
The problem I have with the so-called real conservatives is that they want to throw all the entire loaf overboard because they haven't gotten a few slices.
Pure unadulterated bull crap suitable only for spreading on lawns.
Thank you for this post.
In what respect. I am not really a good one to ask about Blair as he is not really my cup of tea.
Bravo.
Good Lord! What to make of someone who thinks this way? I don't think I can say it without using impolite words.
Did it ever occur to you that dealing effectively with the current dangerous international climate is the only way to ensure we even get to that future?
Yes, my predictions of this nature, are often accurate and I suspect will be in this case.
Hi snugs. Very well said.
Nice try.
Your recitation of the "let's split them up" contingent gets about a 3 out of 10. It used to at least sound sincere. Now it just sounds bored.
Nonsense. Total rubbish. Sometimes I wish we could use stronger language here, because what I'm thinking is a whole lot stronger than what I'm able to post.
Let me put it this way. If your statement quoted above was physical trash, I'd consider it too poisonous for my local landfill. I'd have to burn it.
So. What's it like to have to struggle through life with such poor critical reasoning skills?
Unfortunately, many here actually believe that preposterous hyperbole, and believe that it justifies trashing some basic principles of government put in place by our wise Founders.
Quite simply: If we had invaded Afganistan ahead of time we would have been on a war footing, mking 9/11 much less likely. The South attacked the North to begin the Civil War. The logic is the same.
They ARE vigilantes. They are a self-appointed Vigilance Committee. Such committees are the origin of the use of vigilante in its English form.
The word vigilante is Spanish for watchman or guard. Mirriam-Websters defines the broad English meaning of vigilante as "a self-appointed doer of justice."
"I don't feel 'kicked' by him."
Then you're in the minority.
Remember campaign finance reform, something Bush was supposedly against when he ran in 2000?
I don't know about you, but I vote for Republicans who say they'll hold the line on spending, hoping that they will keep their word. As of yet, I haven't seen a spending bill that Bush hasn't liked since he hasn't vetoed any.
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.