So that's the back story. Now I get to post my side of the discussion. I know that there are some people that are going to agree with the person I was talking with. If you are one of these people, STOP READING NOW! I really haven't got the time for an advanced civics lesson, and I know that I am not likely to change your mind in this discourse. For those of you that are still with me I appreciate your open-mindedness.
So the real issues for me are simple. There are two things. When did people stop understanding how our government works, and when did popularity become important? People don't seem to have any sense of history. For those of you who work better with visuals I include this image...
I'm sure that anyone who has continued reading this far knows who the two men above are. Listed below are their lowest approval ratings. (Now, I know that President Bush has two years of presidency left, but humor me on the comparison.) In the words of David McCullough (a Truman biographer) "About 50 years has to go by before you can appraise a presidency -- the dust has to settle." I think that we need to give President Bush the same time and consideration we have afforded President Truman before we rush to any judgments about how he will be perceived.
And one more thing. The person who got me going on this rant with their opinion on the Presidents job performance... is not a registered voter...
Suggested reading: (from both political perspectives)
The National Review
The Washington Post
14 comments:
Anyone can get elected to office and become "honorable" by position and title. The mettle of a man is what he is willing to sacrifice for his beliefs.
Truman volunteered for WWI. Bush avoided service in Vietnam.
Truman failed at business and spent decades paying back his creditors. Bush failed in business and sold his liabilities for a fancy profit to his family's patrons.
Truman formed international coalitions to build consensus on the shape of the new world order. Bush used his office to encourage an unstable world and taunted those who might act on their anger "bring it on!"
Bush is no Truman.
Oh, and by the way... This from Orwell:
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
I think you may have missed my point a bit. I am not trying to defend all of the actions of President Bush either past or present. I am merely drawing a parallel between two Presidents who have had low approval ratings. To make Bush into Truman clearly doesn’t work.
One of the reasons that I didn’t go into the details is that a comparison of the two is impossible at this point. Given the time necessary to have the historical perspective on the Bush presidency the comparison will or will not be made over time.
I will respond in kind to your points:
Yes, anyone can be elected to office, and I agree that does not make them “honorable”. To imply that President Bush hasn’t sacrificed for his beliefs is simply wrong. Look at his approval rating. Look at the republicans distancing themselves because his policies are not fiscally conservative enough. Just because someone disagrees or looks at things differently doesn’t make them dishonorable. He has his vision. It certainly isn’t yours, and likely is not Truman’s either.
True, Bush served in the National Guard in the Vietnam era. Yes, Truman volunteered to serve in WWI. The argument either way to me is a red herring. In what way is this relevant? The times were different. The wars were different. The men were different. Again… that was never my point.
It is true that Bush and Truman failed in business. It is also true that Bush may have had many more opportunities to succeed because of his connections. He may have also failed on a far more grand scale due to his status and connections. Let’s not forget that “The Senator from Pendergast” used his connections to do things too.
Yes President Bush said “Bring it on”. And at the time his approval ratings sat somewhere in the 90% range. While Truman was creating the new world order he also recognized Israel on it’s first day of existence, a fact which many will argue contributed to our current Mideast environment.
But this discussion just furthers the original point of my post. It’s to early to look at the Bush Presidency and make judgments. We will be in a better position in 50 years to decide if President Bush did a good job. We also will be able to finally settle the debate of is Bush Truman-like or not.
Oh and by the way….This is from Churchill
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
I didn't misunderstand.
Comparing the two is a nice way of saying... Well, Bush is unpopular now, but it'll change when we figure out that his greatness can only be appreciated after the passing of a lifetime.
Fine.
Johnson -- the mastermind of the great society (which included the development of Medicare and Medicaid), the architect of the 1964 civil rights legislation and the first large federal investment in public schools -- will be remember as a great president.
Oh crap! I forgot about the debacle of Vietnam.
Retract all of the above.
I'll put five bucks on Bush not being heralded as a good president -- let alone a great one -- in my lifetime (and if I could, I'd bet within the lifetime of my kids and their's.)
A prediction.....Should our next President end the war and bring our troops home, I believe we will once again see attacks on US soil. It is then that Bush's approval rating will begin to climb. I'm very tempted to take that bet.
By the way, the National Review is a Conservative Journal. The Washington Post is a newspaper.
Very different animals.
(And, where's the liberal media bias? I thought the Post was quite kind.)
I saw bro dave kissing Hillary.....
K:
False premise.
There is no connection between bringing the troops home and attacks on U.S. soil.
Even had we spent the half-trillion we've spent on the war on homeland security, we couldn't guarantee that there would not be attacks here.
On the other hand. Your argument suggests that the only way to stay free of terrorism at home is to stay engaged in the war in Iraq. Is that what you are suggesting?
I'm really confused about how that might be an effective long-term strategy.
We've had bases in Saudi Arabia -- where the majority of the Wahabist terrorists that attacked the U.S. on 9-11 were from -- for years and we were still attacked.
D.
The Other:
Nice use of the spector of a Clinton.
D.
Once again we find that President Bush has polarized something. This time it’s my blog. I understand people have developed strong opinions about President Bush’s policies, and there is a bit of truth in every argument I have seen here. Unfortunately, there is no way to easily solve any of the issues in front of us.
Having distaste for the current administration is fine. Second guessing and thinking that someone else could have done the job better is fine also. That’s our right. We must also be mindful that in the face of challenges and hard decisions, sometimes mistakes are going to be made. This is a truism, and would be so regardless of the political affiliation of the administration.
The people who believe that President Bush is part of a great conspiracy, and makes his decisions based on an agenda other then what he believes is in the best interest of the country, are just wacko wing nuts. I don’t always agree with what he does, but I don’t have reason to question the sincerity of his intentions.
OK everybody, settle down. I was just being argumentative.
For those who are interested, go to www.kcstar.com and type in "Truman Library" in the search field. ...Good commentary.
Have a good weekend.
D.
This is what makes America great - rhetoric on current issues. From a long way away it seems that ND and Bro dave are 'related', although on different sides of the Political spectrum. That is Great!
Bro dave "spector"? I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but looking up your vocabulary (Merriam-Webster) I got the following:
"The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."
Unless your are maybe talking about Phil Spector and Hillary.
enlighten me?
I'll post my 2cents on GWB later
My folly is based upon the overconfidence inculcated by persistent use of the Microsoft Word product.
Specter was what I meant.
Who could possibly wait 50 years to judge W? He is the President of the USA and we are the instant gratification country. You know by the end of the hour who the next American Idol is, macaroni and cheese is microwavable, and Tylenol now dissolves on your tongue. Besides, in 50 years, with 120 degree daily temperatures and melted glaciers, we'll all be dead, drowned, or living a "Lord of the Flies" existence on Everest or K2. Judge him now while you still have the chance!
Post a Comment