Sunday, January 20, 2008

Bushed

Today marks the start of George W. Bush's last year as the nation's chief executive. As 2008 is a leap year, we have 366 days remaining in what is certainly the worst presidency of my lifetime and will likely be regarded as being among the worst in American history.

Bush's comments that future historians will be a better judge of his tenure are a fairy tale, like most of what he says he believes. His administration, characterized by decisions made by a small group of twisted ideologues, has done vast damage to the country and the world in ways that will take decades to repair -- if repairs are indeed possible.

It is enormously disturbing that Bush and his people were able to filch the 2000 election from the arms of democracy; then, in 2004, it was equally upsetting to see that any Americans would actually vote to reelect someone who was clearly so incompetent and disingenuous.

Look around: the US military is mired in Iraq; the economy is tanking; we've gone backwards on the environment, healthcare, consumer safety, etc.; and America has virtually no credibility throughout the world. Are you better off than you were eight years ago? Is the world a safer place?

There's no argument that Iraq has become less violent since the surge of US troops arrived there last spring, but it doesn't take a genius to agree that more soldiers on the ground make it easier to control the insurgency. The success of the surge only emphasizes how badly Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld screwed up when they dismissed estimates, some by career military men, that more troops would be needed in post-war Iraq.

But the fact that Baghdad is a little quieter these days distracts from the point of the surge, which was to provide stability so that Iraq's politicians could come together to solve the large and numerous issues that keep their government from working. So far there has been little progress there, with the country's legislature even taking off last summer because of "the heat," even while American soldiers were out in that same heat in full gear -- and even while some of those soldiers were being killed and wounded.

Speaking of vacations, here is a point that has not been discussed enough, yet is a microcosm of Bush's time in office. Back in the summer of 2001, after about half a year in office, the president left Washington for a month to vacation at his Texas ranch. From Aug. 3 to Sept. 3 he was out of the nation's capital, even as Mohamed Atta was receiving money wired from al-Qaeda, rounding up the other hijackers and purchasing a utility knife at Wal-Mart. On Aug. 6 -- the day that the he was given an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" -- Bush was so concerned about the implications of that memo that he played golf that morning.

We can't be positive that the 9/11 plot would have been stopped if the president were less disengaged and more vigilant, but I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that if Al Gore had been in office on that day -- even if he was working on the problem of terrorism all his waking hours -- the Republican Congress would have not only blamed him, but would have immediately initiated impeachment hearings.

George W. Bush should never have been elected, even once, to the White House -- and wouldn't have if it weren't for large sums of money, dirty tricks and a conservative Supreme Court. He should never have received his party's nomination in 2000. At this point we can only hope to survive one more year with him in charge, and we can only hope that our fellow citizens have seen enough of what happens when we fail to scrutinize closely our choices in the ballot box.

4 comments:

N.starluna said...

A friend of mine and I were discussing Romney's Michigan win. She believes that Romney won because he told Michigan residents what they wanted to hear - that he'll somehow bring back the auto jobs that have gone to states in the south or overseas. She commented that we are in big trouble when an electorate votes for someone based on the lie that he could somehow bring those jobs back rather than the painful truth that those residents should be provided with job training for another industry.

Jim said...

New York Times columnist David Brooks, on the NewsHour last week, said the same about Romney: that he told voters in Michigan that as president he would bring all of the auto industry jobs back. Brooks, a conservative writer, said blatantly that those jobs are gone and never coming back. He added that John McCain lost in Michigan because he told voters the truth.

Unknown said...

I think that Romney's actions in Michigan are the common track most leaders take. As Ron Heifetz at the Kennedy school of Government points out Many people in authority simply avoid the risks and hazards that come from challenging people to tackle tough problems. Instead, they just maintain equilibrium. True leadership that leads to adaptive change in society calls for leaders that will have a reverence for the losses and the disloyalties that he/she is asking people to sustain as they let go of pieces of the past that no longer serve them. Mitt Romney surely did not do this in his campaign in Michigan. On the other hand, this type of leadership takes a tremendous amount of courage. It is also probably political suicide. Sometimes, as was the case with MLK Jr., it can lead to assassination.

Anonymous said...

The real problem is when a candidate promises something that he cannot deliver - even if he intended to. There is no way to bring the auto jobs back for the same reason that once people move out of Mass. for a state that has a lower cost of living have little to no chance of moving back: Once you change your cost model to run at a lower level, even if it is possible or necessary to change it back - you'll have a hell of a time convincing the investors. Once you lose the investors - you might as well close up shop.

The only way we can hope to STOP the mass exodus of jobs to lower cost regions, is to levy huge taxes against manufacturers and consumers of goods produced in other countries and require that any "American Company" meet a business model that specifies that the lion's share of their production be done in the U.S. in order to reap any of the benefits of being an American company. i.e. a company that was initiated in the states but now does 80% of their actual production overseas should not reap any tax breaks or benefits.

Similarly, the states can work harder to incent companies to stay or setup shop within their borders.

That's something I'd like to see All of the candidates focus on. Unfortunately, its difficult to find any candidate, anywhere that doesn't benefit from big business and that wouldn't be reluctant to rock the boat.