An Old Man Looks Back on George W. Bush and His Presidency

About This Post

I am on neutral party ground when it comes to politics. My Political Compasspoints dead center of right and left, two ticks down on the Libertarian side. I have been an independent since the Richard Nixon days, but have never voted for an Independent, although I did have a lot of common beliefs with Ross Perot in 1992. I have supported, and will continue to support, people in both major political party’s; but I do not support or praise the politician who has proven not to hold as their best interest the good of the overall country and the majority of its citizens, regardless of which party he or she belongs to. So don’t confuse this post as being an endorsement of the Democratic Party. It’s my personal opinion they wouldn’t do much better, but I doubt seriously they could harm the country as bad as George W. Bush and his administration has.

My problem is not with the Republican Party, most especially with the moderate conservatives. My problem is with those who continue to insist the Bush administration has done no harm to our country & its majority, and continue insisting he’s been a great President; “just because he’s a Republican”. Many Republicans have lost faith in Bush & his administration; it’s no shame to do so, only a shame not to. His approval rating among Republicans has been steadily dropping since early 2003, with only 60% supporting him in May of this year, and no doubt much lower now as a result of the downward spiral of our economy. As of May of this year 32 Congressional Republicans has either left or announced their plans to retire at the end of this year, most of them citing their displeasure with Bush and the GOP. This article by the New York Times looks at the Republicans mixed emotions about Bush, and ponders exactly when they begin to loose faith in him. So a good number of Republicans already recognize Bush for what he is.

Let’s face it; for many, if George W. Bush had a “D” in front of his name rather than an “R” and had performed in exactly the same manner as he has over the past 8 years, he would have been crucified by the Republicans and the media. There’s no question that not only would he have been impeached, he would have been removed from office. The neo-conservative Republican war machine would have seen to that.

As ordinary voting citizens, we do have a choice of what a President does regardless of which party he belongs to. All we have to do is stop fighting among ourselves (which is what the divisionary wants), come together, and force our elected officials to do what is best for the country; not what’s best for themselves, their friends, and their party. We do have the power you know, if we just quit giving it away to them and succumbing to their “public relations stoolies”, often referred to as the “news media”.

A Presidents Mandate

William Appleman Williams, influential progressive historian, said “it is not by rhetoric alone, but by their ability to recognize and resolve the central problems of their times that one should judge presidents“. Norman Markowitz, US history teacher at Rutgers University, wrote “In judging who are the best or worst presidents, we should look at what they saw as the central problems of their times, what they did about those problems and whether or not their actions really contributed to a positive resolution of those problems. Whether or not the presidents were popular or won or lost great political battles is really beside the point. Whether their policies were “successful” in that they were implemented in terms of what they wanted to achieve is not the issue. The content and positive effects of their policies in regard to real life are the basis on which they should be judged” [bold/ underline added].

About This Post

If your political attitude is “You belong to that other party if you have any criticism at all for my party or anyone in my party”, then you won’t like this post. But if you believe that truth & honesty should be the order of the day, the means does not justify the end, and can accept both the good and bad of your political party, you probably will be ok with this post.

This post is not very flattering of George W. Bush or his presidency. However, it is truthful. It’s painfully obvious after nearly 8 years that Bush has not affected policy that addressed our “central problems”. He has arrogantly proven over and over that his agenda is solely in support of corporations and a large number of wealthy people (just as the neo-conservative agenda dictates) regardless of the cost to the country, middle and lower class people, and, in fact, the entire world in general.

As the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush has only 91 days left to the end of his presidency. A huge number of US citizens refer to his presidency as a “reign”, as in “King” George Bush. He placed all his efforts over the past 8 years in serving himself and his “friends”, as is documented below. Unless those friends write it, history will not be very kind to Bush or his administration. In fact, history will probably record his presidency as the worst since James Buchanan, maybe worse (Buchanan served from 1857 to 1861 and is acknowledged by most to be worst President ever).

George W. Bush took office in January 2001 after a much debated election results, which, in retrospect, really set the tone for his presidency. This post is an outline of my view of his Presidency beginning with the 2000 campaign and election, with a brief look at his pre-presidency life. Where possible, links are provided to substantiate the content (if desired, you can right click on links and “open in new window” for quick X-out to continue reading this post). Stories, reports, and articles by obviously biased media, both pro & con, were closely scrutinized & compared to like reports to the best of my ability for truths, untruths, and so-called spins (the latter defined by me as lies).

Neo-Conservatives

Many say modern day neo-conservatism rule began under the Ronald Reagan Presidency (some say not). But Reagan’s indisputable point dogs for this movement were Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, and later for George H.W. Bush. Wolfowitz and Perle begin their careers in earlier years as staffers under Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson.

(The following is borrowed from “TVLiesNews”, therefore might be dismissed by some. However, the ideology of Neo-conservatism as pointed out below is basically factual, although many neo-conservatives deny parts of this due to embarrassment or an attempt to hide their true agenda. At the bottom of this segment are a few other sites defining Neo-conservatism.)

The godfather of the Neocon movement was an intellectual disciple of Machiavelli named Leo Strauss. Straus was a German Zionist who immigrated to the US in the 1930s and mentored people like William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz [hyperlinks added] while advocating his philosophy of a dog-eat-dog world. In essence, the Straussian philosophy and teachings are now known as Neo-Conservatism. Below are some of the more interesting and perhaps surprising or even disturbing aspects of Neo-Conservatism as taught by Strauss:

• Nations cannot consider collective action and multilateralism unless it is 100 percent in line with their own selfish interests.
• Strong leadership is required.
• Military power is essential.
• Leadership ought not be encumbered by human rights discourse or a moral conscience but nonetheless must “appear” to advocate such ideas.
• Rulers need not observe the laws they impose on the ruled.
• A ruler can cheat and lie and do all sorts of things but should at all time maintain the outside appearance of adherence to human rights and caring for people.
• Leaders can use religion as one of many tools to ensure the nation keeps on course as formulated.
• Outside threats help ensure social cohesion under domestic leadership.
• Altruism, environmental protection, justice etc, are not the concern of governments and ruling elites. They have no part to play in the equation of power.
• Strauss questioned how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist.
• Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society, especially a liberal society because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.
• Secular society is the worst possible thing, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society’s ability to cope with external threats
• Nazism was a nihilistic reaction to the ungodly and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic.
• Religion should impose moral law on the masses who would otherwise be out of control.

Machiavelli’s political doctrine serves as the foundation of Neo-Conservatism and it denies the relevance of morality in political affairs. It states that that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power. It implies that when it comes to achieving or maintaining power the end justifies the means [bold/underline added]. This is essentially the core of Machiavellianism and serves as the foundation for Neo-Conservatism: The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. Machiavelli discusses frankly, the necessity of cruel actions to keep power. He was in the business of power preservation, not piety. According to the originator of Neo-Conservative ideology, the leader of the state must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil.

Let me repeat this last principle of Neo-Conservatism because it plays into the “believability factor” when considering claims made by people who accuse the Bush administration of unconscionable actions: “The leader of the state must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil.” These people believe that evil is acceptable and necessary at times!

Francis Fukuyama, admittedly once a neo-conservative, wrote an article for the New York Times in February 2006 entitled “After Neoconservatism”. In this six-page article he talks about, among other things, the aftermath of the Iraqi war and the real prices to eventually be paid.

NOTE: William Kristol mentioned above is frequently seen on TV, in particular Fox News. He is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the founding fathers of neo-conservatism.

Additional sites on neo-conservatism.

• Neoconservatism Made Kristol Clear
• An Introduction to Neoconservatism
• Neo-Conservatism Explained

See Next “Page” Link Below