Posted on 08/04/2009 6:50:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What if a president, on his own initiative, under no demands from staff or from supporters or opponents, set out to spend an unprecedented amount of money on AIDS in Africa, literally billions of dollars, at a time when the nation could not afford it, citing his faith as a primary motivation and, ultimately, saved more than a million lives?
Wouldn’t the story be front-page news, especially in top, liberal newspapers? Wouldn’t it lead on CNN, MSNBC and the “CBS Evening News”? Might statues be erected to the man in the nation’s more “progressive” cities?
What if the president was George W. Bush?
I pose these uncomfortable questions for two reasons: 1) President Bush did precisely that regarding the African AIDS tragedy; and 2) a study claims that Bush’s remarkable action has indeed saved many precious lives.
And as someone who has closely followed Bush’s humanitarian gesture from the outset, I’m not surprised that the former president continues to not receive the accolades he deserves — including even from conservative supporters — for this generous act.
Bush himself realizes the lack of gratitude and media attention. I personally witnessed it very recently, on June 17, when I was in attendance for one of Bush’s first postpresidential speeches, in Erie, Pa. There, too, he mentioned the AIDS initiative — even adding that one of his daughters is in Africa today, working on the epidemic — and, there again, it received no press coverage whatsoever.
It all began in January 2003, during the State of the Union. In a completely unexpected announcement, Bush asked Congress for $15 billion for AIDS in Africa — drugs, treatment and prevention.
America soon learned this was not the typical State of the Union throwaway line: To show his seriousness, Bush followed on April 29 with a press conference in the East Room, where he exhorted Congress to “act quickly” on his “emergency plan.”
Accompanied by the secretary of state, he prodded America’s wealthy allies to join this “urgent work,” this “great effort.” He explained that AIDS was a “dignity of life” issue and “tragedy” that was the “responsibility of every nation.” This was a “moral imperative,” with time “not on our side.”
Bush then shocked the press by pointing to an unusual personal motivation, citing the parable of the Good Samaritan: “[T]his cause is rooted in the simplest of moral duties,” he told journalists. “When we see this kind of preventable suffering … we must act. When we see the wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not, America will not, pass to the other side of the road.”
With amazing quickness, just four weeks later, Bush inked a $15-billion plan and challenged Europe to match the U.S. commitment without delay.
How did the plan work? In April, a major study was released by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. According to the study, the first to evaluate the outcomes of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Bush initiative has cut the death toll from HIV/AIDS by more than 10% in targeted African countries from 2003 to 2007.
“It has averted deaths — a lot of deaths,” said Dr. Eran Bendavid, one of the researchers. “It is working. It’s reducing the death toll from HIV. People who are not dying may be able to work and support their families and their local economy.” Co-researcher, Dr. Peter Piot, says PEPFAR “is changing the course of the AIDS epidemic.”
The study — still having received virtually no press attention several months after its release — estimates that the Bush relief plan has saved more than 1 million African lives.
Those are the facts. What about opinion, particularly public opinion?
That brings me back to my initial point. If a Democratic Party president had done this, he would be feted as both a national hero and international hero on his way to a ceremony with the Nobel Committee. George W. Bush, however, is getting very little credit — or, at least, no fanfare.
Again, I’m not surprised. I first wrote about the Bush AIDS initiative in a 2004 book, followed by several articles, including an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, plus many discussions on radio and TV talk shows.
I was struck by two reactions, from the left and the right:
From the left, I got incensed e-mails from Bush-hating elements refusing to concede that Bush did what he did. They said the craziest things, insisting not a dime had been spent and that the program effectively did not even exist. They could not find it within their power to grant that Bush could do something so kind, which they should naturally embrace. I’ve been most disappointed by my fellow Christians in the “social justice” wing — Catholics and Protestants alike — who have been deafeningly silent on a campaign that ought to serve as a poster child for precisely what they advocate.
To be fair, some have stepped up to thank Bush, including no less than Bill Clinton, as well as musician-activist Bob Geldof. But they are the exception. (In a piece for Time, Geldof wrote about the moment he personally asked Bush about the lack of awareness of the AIDS initiative: “Why doesn’t America know about this?” Bush answered: “I tried to tell them. But the press weren’t much interested.”)
From the right, I still get angry e-mails explaining that what Bush did for Africans is not a “core function” of government, certainly not enumerated anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Fiscal conservatives asserted that America could not afford this huge expenditure at a time of post-9/11 recession, burgeoning budget deficits, on the heels of a massive operation in Afghanistan, and as military spending was about to go through the roof as U.S. troops headed for Baghdad.
Technically, or perhaps fiscally, much of this is true.
Yet, to be sure, George W. Bush understood the financial cost — and said so explicitly. Nonetheless, he judged that only America could carry out this “act of compassion” at that critical juncture. He also judged, apparently, that only he, as a Western leader, had the will to do this.
So, he did it. He absorbed the cost to try to save lives.
Well, we now know that the policy has worked — just as, yes, we know it contributed to a record deficit. Still, it is rare when history can so directly, indisputably credit a president for a specific, undeniable policy achievement — a genuinely generous one that clearly emerged from his personal doing, from his heart. Millions of lives have been spared or bettered due to President Bush’s intervention.
But while the policy helped, it never did anything to help George W. Bush’s terrible disapproval rating — and still will not, given its lack of attention.
Well, George W. Bush, the much-ridiculed man of faith — ridiculed often because of his faith — always said he never expected rewards in this lifetime. Here’s one that apparently will need to wait.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004)
and professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
Powerful post. Thank you!
It seems to me your point is that if we had not elected Bush, we would have gotten Kerry or Gore. My point is that we got that anyway when we voted for Bush. Perhaps not as virulent a “liberal” as the dems, but a RINO nonetheless.
Taking your apparent argument a step further, you believe it makes perfect sense to vote for RINOs to keep a demrat out of office.
Exactly how does that advance conservatism?
If it’s possible refrain from name calling and try to answer the question.
Bush’s presidency will be seen by objective historians for what it was—a disaster.
He had eight years in office. The demrats rolled him over.
He can be given credit for fixing the Supreme Court. And he can be given credit for going to war against Islamic terrorism.
I refuse to him any credit for tax cuts since he joined with the demrats in a federal spending binge that essentially negated it.
How long the US SC remains in the hands of Constitutionalists is anybody’s guess. But his minimalist approach to fight the terrorists was a disastor. That conflict should have been over at least six years ago.
If you can name three other initiatives Bush succeeded in implementing that were faithful to the Constitution and/or prevented the Marxists from taking over the WH.
It's almost like W's third term.
That, in and of itself, is reason enough for you to admit that he is light years away from Kerry or Gore.
One can only presume that it is something emotional that is in control of your thought process, because if your logic were in control, you would never say the things you have said on this thread.
Can you imagine the difference for conservatism if we did not have Roberts and Alito on the SC? And you pass it off as nothing?
Can you imagine what would have happened to us after 9/11 if Gore had been in charge? Can you imagine how many more Americans would be DEAD if it weren't for President Bush? And that is no more than an aside for you? It means nothing to you that he kept us safe from terrorist attack??
As for the "minimalist" approach to the war against terrorists, that is nonsense. AlQaeda has been decimated. When Bush left office, both Afghanistan and Iraq could be considered victories. It took a while to find the right General (Petraeus) who shared the CinC's desire for victory, but he was found, and that victory was achieved.
Your final question is distorted. Bush is being falsely accused of ushering in Marxists when that is logically and factually inaccurate. You are asking me to prove a negative, and say what he did to prevent it - and that is impossible to determine based on any norm of debate.
Just be honest. You hate the guy, and nothing he does will satisfy your emotional need to bash him. You've made yourself very clear in that.
Good to know in case we run into each other in the future.
The lack of perspective on reality must make it tough to deal with what happens in life.
You have my sympathy for your loss.
Exactly.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear I had taken a wrong turn and ended up on the dark side. It's insanity!
I just keep reminding myself how good it feels when we win!
There will never be anyone in the White House to suit you...admit it.
Enjoy the Marxist. You helped him get there.
How I wish we had President Bush back. This is a nightmare.
(Who can even begin to think that it's the same under Bush and Obama? WHO??)
Always remember, Dubya started it with his comment "jobs Americans won't do..."
In my tender yute, I did every kind of miserable job, from hanging drywall, to hot mop roofs in the gentle August sun of southern California.
Not being born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I had to Bust my hump during the summer months to go back to college in the fall.
I could have clerked in a air conditioned store for about a buck fiddy five, (don't hold me to exact numbers here - whatever was the minimum wage back then.
But the wage level left nothing for school (I received zero support from anyone) so I worked the construction jobs that paid about 2 and a half to three times the minimum wage (again, don't hold me to exact numbers, just remember the ratios).
Now with all the illegals flooded in? These jobs only pay about a buck or two above the minimum wage. No wonder young'ns graduate so deep in debt. (Bush's fault!!!)
'Cause I lacked a rich Daddy, I'm less of an 'Merican than...? (whoever he sets the standard by)
Tell cheerleader boy we'll compare DD214's any day!
I apologize for being so blunt in presenting facts, but I couldn't ever call myself a conservative should I ignore them.
As far as him picking up dog poo? Heck, without his glasses, he thought he was shaking hands with Phil Graham, a former senator also from Texas.... And you have a blessed day!
I didn’t realize you were on my who donates money to whom list, I must’ve skipped over your name by accident. Also do you have any proof that Bush ordered their prosecution?
You have my sympathy for your horrific life in this great country, and for how you suffered under the iron fist of George W. Bush.
Seriously and finally, the fact remains that President Bush is an honorable man. I'm sorry you don't agree, but it doesn't change the facts one whit. He is an honorable, real, decent man whom you hate because of a political difference of opinion.
So you have my pity as well. But don't be asking for any money just because you've been abused. Take care of yourself and quit your bellyaching.
Nobody really cares about your work history, but class warfare is an invention of the Left.
Seems I remember some lefties way back when, were screaming that
America wasn’t doing enough for the AIDS in Africa.
Must have been just for show.
$$$$$
They cannot acknowledge the success of the PEPFAR programs because countries did not get money unless they supported the Change of Behavior programs that went with the money. To a lib, telling anyone, even a spreader of AIDS, to curtail sexual activity is verboten and an outrage. Hence, this program Must be Ignored.
Hate him? No way, don't have time for that! Now hold him in contempt? Now we're on the right path. Come on FDIC Friday!
C And I don't need anything from you, but thanks for the offer*.
* But if you insist, kindly make a donation to the FReeperthon? Thxs
You're a whiner par excellence, mr world. You may be a braggart, but you gripe with the best of them.
As for the contempt for President Bush - so be it. You hold an honorable, gracious, Godly man in contempt. It says a whole lot about you. Nothing about him.
But let me say finally, that I hold YOU in contempt for your bashing of our military. SHAME on you.
It was never about George W. Bush. It was about doing what he thought was right for the American people. He had feet of clay, just as we all do, but he loved America.
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.