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 mindset in this nation that needs to change. As a people, we look at people in the United States around the world who appear to need help, and we just up and throw money at them like there’s no limit to what we can dedicate to it.
A massive portion of our federal budget is dedicated to handouts. At the state level, we hand out even more.
Then there is education and health care, and we hand out even more there.
There seems to be no limit to the hundreds of billions of dollars we dedicate to ‘touchy feely good things’, and yet there should be.
Should the U.S. be donating tens of billions of dollars for Africa? Bush signed on to sending upwards of $30 billion dollars over there. Obama has a plan to donate about one trillion dollars to an effort to end third world debt. Then what? Why of course, the third world will be free to take out still further loans for us to pay off.
Folks, I support programs that are intended to make people inside and outside the U.S. self-sufficient. I do not support funding for people who are here illegally. I support repatriating them.
The goal here is not to gift the world right out of the pocket books of the U.S. Citizens.
What Bush did was compassionate to Africa. It was burdensome and entirely inappropriate to treat the U.S. taxpayer with so little respect.
Bono should have his ass kicked every which way from Sunday. That rat bastard has been trashing the United States for decades, while he runs from tax exposure with his own funds. This ilk, is a plague on the planet.
I do not support hand outs. People who want be self-sufficient find a way. Those who want to be dependent on the government, also find a way.
It’s time for people around the planet to stand up and do for themselves.
If John and Jane America want to give to charitable causes, I support it to a point. The federal government has no business handing out our funds. None! Nada! Zilch!
Please. Try consistently not paying your taxes and see how long it is before someone shows up at your house with a gun.
In other words, try "in depth" that covers the whole picture, and not just a part of it.
And then be thankful for what we had for eight years.
(And, NO, he did not open the door for Democrats. You are ignoring all the facts with that bogus theory).
What garbage. Looks like the 7 solid years of 100% negative media coverage can influence a soft brain.
Oh well, if it makes you feel good.......
Some of these folks just make things up, Deb.
And note...it wasn't his money to spend. A preview of the bailouts to come. Mis, mal and nonfeasance with other people's money.
They can’t let a single positive thing Bush did go unchallenged. It’s pathetic.
Ditto. Totally agree on all points listed.
I knew the country was in good hands with George Bush.
Same here. What a difference a year makes.
May GOD Continue to BLESS Our Great and Wonderful President George W. Bush!!
ping!
As much as I like President Bush, what money he spent on Africa cannot be considered alms. To take from people, without their approval and give to someone else, no matter how worthy the cause, is not much better than the redistribution of wealth that is now underway.
Not only was a great humanitarian effort, it had huge National Security implications.
Africa is increasingly where the war of ideas and the war for hearts and minds will be fought in this century between the West and the Islamists. This effort among others really helped improve the U.S.’s image in the region which will increasingly pay dividends for decades to come.
To the naysayers here all I have to say is “humanitarian” aid is an arrow in America’s FP quiver. Foreign aid helped us win the Cold War, and it will help us win the GWOT.
I miss President and Mrs. Bush.
I’m sure that’s how it will be sold to the left. :-)
“To take from people, without their approval and give to someone else,”
I thought that the Congress had approved President Bush’s plan to supply the funds for AID’s medical care in Africa. I posted the scripture as an example of doing works of mercy without fanfare.
Originalist judges like Harriet Miers?
What pro business policies? Do you mean Sarbanes-Oxley, or the big budget increases for the SEC and the IRS? What did W do for the tech sector at the Waco Economic Forum? The stock market actually finished negative after his eight horrible years in office, even though there was a big correction before he got in.
Most of W's tax cuts didn't work. In fact he gave them a bad name, though that hasn't stopped similar garbage like the cash for clunkers program.
We aren't going to have much of a defense if we can't pay for it after his economic neglect.
W stinks up to this point and I still haven't mentioned CFR or NCLB.
I know you don't like me pointing out how bad W was, but we need to face the facts after 20 years of destruction under the Bush Dynasty if we're ever going to get our government and the GOP fixed.
Bush quietly saved millions of lives.
And Clinton played with his zipper while close to a million people were hacked to death in Rwanda.
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.