------------------------------
What makes you think I'm a leftist. Because I can't support a leftist like Bush when he declares America has a duty to share its wealth with the world? Because I can't support a goof who wants to erase our borders? You've been had but you refuse to see it.
Bush and Clinton have much in common. After assuming the presidency, both tried to be president without knowing what to do on a concrete level.
George Bush probably acquires or accepts information somewhat quickly, but it is not processed or analyzed beyond one or two steps. There's no sign of creativity or originality or depth of processing.
Bush seems to have come into office with little discernible highly defined commitment to anything. His campaign lacked an incisive coherent theme beyond the idea that George Bush was pleasant. It isn't even apparent that either Bush senior or junior are searching for something in their lives. My personal impression is that the family is peculiarly bland and lifeless or bloodless with no determined direction. The present President Bush seems to have an infinite supply of spontaneous blandness for all occasions.
The closest thing approximating a sense of anchor or direction in the Bushs seems to be a perpetuation of ascension and verification of a type of social class. Within this, concepts of individual economic and personal rights in America are of little relevance.
Unlike Reagan Bush is a drifter, not a determined forceful rower. The same was true of his father. It is neither Bush's inclination nor within his developed capacity to confront socialism. If pressed Bush could probably not define freedom without resort to speechwriters.
I'd like to respond to two small points only from all of this. "The present President Bush seems to have an infinite supply of spontaneous blandness for all occasions." Peggy Noonan, I believe, had an interesting article a few days ago about how liberals require their leaders to be "complicated", because politics is their God and who can stand to see the ordinary at the height of one's pantheon? All I can say is, thank God for blandness.
As for leadership, and Bush's "incisive coherent theme beyond the idea that George Bush was pleasant", I am reminded of two Bush campaign messages - "restoring decency to the Oval Office", and "they have not led - we will."
Leadership does not necessarily entail having a lengthy policy agenda. It often - perhaps primarily - entails being a person of good quality, standing prepared to handle whatever unexpected challenges are presented to those one leads. In our situation, Bush cannot have been expected to have had a full agenda to prosecute a War on Terrorism previous to 9/11. Just as obviously, since then, all else pales in comparison. His ability to recognize that the greatest demand on his leadership was the single-minded prosecution of this war is a sign of his strength, not his weakness.
He also - due to his faith, I'd wager - recognizes that the fortunes of America, and of American conservatism, depend on many, many more people than just himself. He seems to be genuinely humble enough to recognize that America is a Republic, not a monarchy, and that our success depends just as much on the leadership of others - from state governors and Senators to community leaders and ordinary citizens - as on his leadership. Instead of blaming Bush for not single-handedly halting our "slide in to servitude", how about pitching in to help?