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.
There is a shrillness to these people who claim to be conservative, but think Bush was the GOP’s own version of The Messiah.
Other than his SC appointments and launching so-called WOT, I keep asking these people to name three things that Bush did to advanced conservatism or were faithful to our Constitution.
They can’t do it so they resort to calling me essentially insane. Doesn’t that have a familiar ring? Does it sound like our own brand of little commies who assert anyone that does not agree them are hicks or insane?
No good deed goes unpunished.
“when you do it to the least of these my brethren ... ye have done it unto me”.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. ... that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Praise the LORD!
So many were in love with Bush cause he put on a cowboy hat and had a few photos taken on the ranch mendin barbed wire fences.
It's all a bunch of baloney. His daddy, as well as baby Bush were both born up in the Northeast. He’z no Texan.
Standin in a garage don't make you an automobile....now does it?
If Bush were a true Texan, he’da close those borders down tighter than a drum.
He’da gone through our government and CUT SPENDING, not Increase spending.
Then we had during the election, “The Maverick for Change”.
What a bunch a hog warsh! We lost cause the republican party are a bunch of globalist elites hell bent on shippin everything overseas to appease the corporate elites that helped gett’em in office.
There all a bunch of money grubbin, power happy, soft handed, liberal wussies. The whole bunch of’em.
Here's the answer to the problem.....TERM LIMITS for all congressman and senators.
boom.
Great post!
I totally agree!!!
I totally agree!!!
Bush deserves a peace prize for what he did for Africa.
I know you are desperate to blame President Bush for all the ills in the world, but if I want to hear that kind of made-up garbage, all I have to do is turn on CNN.
Not interested, mr world. You're too desperate to be credible.
Don't you Bush haters realize that your extremism makes you completely lose any modicum of credibility?
btw, term limits are a good idea. Your Bush hatred is bunk.
it’s Bush’s fault.
I do not agree however. I am no man's lackey.
I am no Bush hater, just don't think he was a great leader nor a true conservative.
It's ok for you to disagree.
Why did you feel the need to say that President Bush, raised in Texas, living in Texas and loved in Texas, is not a Texan? What purpose did that serve other than to give a sign that you are desperate to bash him for anything and everything?
If you, and others here would stick to legitimate political differences and not (ridiculous) false personal accusations, then a debate could take place with differing opinions.
When you say things like, Bush isn't a Texan, and make hostile references to his "Daddy" and call him "baby Bush," you make yourself sound like either an angry, irrational fruitloop, a leftist troll, or someone who just escaped from the county home.
Why would you want to do something like that on a forum meant for political discussion?
Feel free not to answer me. But I'm really curious about people who make ridiculous comments about a man of integrity, courage and moral strength that only make them look foolish. Do you WANT to look foolish?
He was a weak leader and a chameleon conservative.
Sorry, that's just how I feel.
He wants amnesty.....conservatives do not.
He wants a new world order.......workin folks in America like America just as she is.
He grew government larger than any previous president....contrary to conservative beliefs.
His daddy said, read my lips, then turn around and broke his vow to the American middle class....lack of principal.
I'm a conservative and darn tired of our leadership sayin one thing and doing another.
If you trust our government and politicians, that's certainly your prerogative.
I do not.
There are few people more conservative than I, and I will say this in response to your accusations of our honorable 43rd President.......
Your comment about his father and taxes is irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing the son. Reagan raised taxes too, but I'm quite sure you don't have the same contempt for him. George W. Bush didn't raise taxes.
I disagree with some of his policies in his attempt to reform immigration, but I am familiar enough with the man to know that he did what he did based on his own principles. Disagreeing with your politics doesn't mean a person is unprincipled.
New world order?? Cult stuff. He stood strongly for American sovereignty in front of the UN, in his opposition to the World Court, in his foreign policy overall. That's a loser of an argument.
He did grow the government, and as a conservative I don't like that, but so did Reagan, and I didn't like it then either. The idea of shrinking government, even with a committed small government leader like Reagan, doesn't seem to be a possibility. But in any case, it's not a reason to despise the man.
The one thing you have missed about President Bush is that what he said he would do, he did. I think you're confusing the Republicans in Congress with him. He made it very clear what he stood for when he ran for election and re-election. If you weren't listening, that's not his fault.
I do not "trust our government and politicians" as a general rule, but I do trust President Bush because he earned my trust. It is folly to deny that there are any honest politicians. It is cynical and illogical. You just have to have your eyes open, and examine the people who represent you.
I guess for some of you, it's easier to follow the crowd than to think for yourselves. I prefer to think.
I wish Bush had been as minutely concerned for the devastation & invasion of our country by +30 million illegal aliens, or for allowing a 300% growth of gubmint spending on his watch, or presiding over the demise of the Republican party.
But they give them to people like Arafat, Carter and Gore, who do their best to destroy life and peace.
God bless President Bush for what he did for Africa, for America, and for the world.
His prize will be awarded to him, but not here on earth. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant!"
LOL
No, you can conclude that I don't OWE you an answer or owe you anything at all.
I'm not your child......go scold one of them and stop all your sophomoric rose colored ranting and move on your way.
It's a long journey through this life....don't waste it getting upset over compassionate conservatism.
Gezzz.......relax will ya.
All I did was answer your accusations with my opinion, which you did state I had the right to have, didn't you?
And I asked you a question about why you posted things that weren't true, and said you didn't have to answer it either, which you clearly have chosen not to do.
Let me give you some advice, even though I'm clearly not your mother (whew! that's a relief!). There's a really awful person in the White House now, who is genuinely stealing everything conservatives hold dear. He is not there because of George W. Bush, but he is there through deceit, cover-ups, manufactured financial crises by Democrats, and a very large group of gullible Americans.
Let me suggest that you focus all your rage on the Marxist liar who is destroying this country, and let up on the honorable patriot who led us bravely from 2001 to 2009.
Together we might accomplish something. As long as you look backward and focus your anger on a fictitious past and on folks like me who admire President Bush, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Try to join the team, OK? We need all the help we can get. Join us.
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.