Why I Like Bush
I did not vote for George W. Bush in the 2000 election. I voted for Pat Buchanan instead. "How could you do that, James, in such a close election?" Well, I lived in Massachusetts at the time, and it was going for Gore, so I decided I could afford to vote my conscience. Had I lived in Ohio, where elections are closer, I would definitely have voted for Bush.
I was rather skeptical of Bush in 2000, since I expected him to be like his old man. Bush, Sr. appointed the pro-abortion (I'm sorry, "pro-choice") Louis Sullivan to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. He raised taxes, after his famous "no new taxes" pledge.
And I didn't know if Bush II would be any different, since I heard he had appointed liberal judges as Governor of Texas. But I could see from his cabinet appointments that this Republican wouldn't burn me. For Secretary of Health and Human Services, he picked Tommy Thompson, a solid pro-lifer.
As the years went by, Bush continued to impress me. He didn't just talk about cutting taxes; he actually did it. The result was economic growth, in spite of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. His judicial appointments were solidly conservative. He heartily supported abstinence-only education, and his policies were sensitive to the rights of the unborn.
I adamantly defended Bush against liberals who criticized him. And, believe it or not, it's not that hard to do.
Against liberals who claimed that Bush wanted to destroy the environment, I could point out the positive things that occurred on his watch: less air pollution, a limit on methane and harmful pesticides, tougher regulations on air polluters and mines, etc.
To those who called Republicans racist and sexist, I could point out Bush's minority appointments to high governmental and judicial positions--and they were conservative at that, showing that not all women and minorities feel that the Left speaks for them. I could also cite statistics about the closing of the educational achievement gap between whites and minorities.
And to those who believed that Bush lacked compassion for the poor, I could argue that funding for a lot of programs didn't get cut on Bush's watch. Rather, it increased.
One thing about Bush, and that is this: he is a bold visionary. He wasn't afraid to push the envelope and promote new ideas. We now have a way to measure if schools are performing, as a result of No Child Left Behind. Pollution got reduced because of his cap-n-trade policy. Bush was also a champion of faith-based initiatives and social security reform.
On a personal level, Bush came across as a nice, humble guy, like Ronald Reagan. He didn't seem to feel that he had to be President to feel good about himself. I read that George and Laura offered food to their staff, showing they were givers, not high-and-mighty elitists. I also heard Ralph Reed say something that resonated with me: Although Bush received tons of abuse from his opponents, he never responded in kind.
Do I have any reservations about the Bush Presidency? Yes. Here are a few:
Reservations
1. Foreign Policy
He deserves credit for keeping the country safe after 9/11, and things seem to be going well in Iraq. But that is after 4,000 American lives have been lost, and numerous more Iraqi lives.
You know, I seriously had second thoughts about voting for Bush in 2004 after I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, since I can't imagine what a family goes through after losing a son, daughter, father, or mother to war. And was such loss even necessary? I'm not talking about Bush saying there were WMDs in Iraq, when there really were none. There's a lot of liberal mythology about the war, and I don't buy into it hook, line, and sinker. But Bush could have done the surge years ago. Instead, he went with the neo-con idea of a small, compact army, with the result that we lost lots of lives before we did the right thing.
And my problem's not just that Bush made a bad decision. It's that he didn't listen to his generals. There was such an atmosphere of intimidation in the Bush White House that people didn't always feel free to speak their minds.
Moreover, I now question an overly hawkish approach to the world. During the 1980's, Reagan set a precedent when he boldly challenged the Soviet Union. Before him, America's leaders cowered before this great bear. They trusted but did not verify. They let the Soviets continue their empire-building throughout the world, even in our own backyard. But Reagan stood up to the U.S.S.R. and did the right thing, and he didn't care if the Soviets liked him or not.
I think Bush tried to imitate that in his approach to Islamic extremism. He'll go to war, and he won't care if anyone likes him or not. Now, we've alienated so many of our allies. Bush I could rally Arab nations to fight the first Gulf War. Could Bush II do the same?
We assume that beating up on bad nations will get them to respect us and behave themselves. It doesn't necessarily! It can make them madder. Bush has a Middle East policy that lets Israel do what it wants to defend itself, regardless of how many Palestinian lives get lost in the process. But Israel beating up on Gaza hasn't made the Palestinian extremists any nicer. Rather, they're firing more rockets.
Is there a way to have a foreign policy that is tough, yet fair, which is courageous and commands respect, yet does not always resort to blowing others to kingdom come?
2. Governance
Bush had a lot of good ideas, but he couldn't get them enacted if his life depended on it! The idea of private accounts is something even Democrats have supported, but Bush couldn't get them passed. Bush says that his White House warned long ago about the dangers of Fannie and Freddie. Fair enough, but why didn't he do anything about it? Sure, this current financial crisis is due largely to Democratic policies (e.g., Community Reinvestment Act), but why didn't Bush do anything to prevent it?
Bush speaks out against earmarks, yet earmarks remain. In 2004, he promised to tackle rising health care costs--by allowing small businesses to pool their resources and purchase health insurance. Whatever happened to that idea? It would be nice if he acted rather than talk, since premiums and the cost of health care continue to rise. Bush is the President, not a radio talk-show host!
In the first few years of his Presidency, Bush was bringing Republicans and Democrats together, as he promised to do in the 2000 election. Democrats played a significant role in No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug benefit. But, somewhere along the way, Bush concluded that he didn't need the other side. When a Democrat said he'd support the Bush tax cuts with some revisions, he was told, "We're not interested in getting Democratic support. We just want that one vote that makes a majority."
I'm not saying Bush had to suck up to the Democrats, but he could've done a better job in creating goodwill.
Conclusion
I did not vote for Barack Obama, and there are things about him that scare me. At church this morning, the priest said that Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which will force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. I hope that's not what it does!
But Obama at least seems willing to listen to different perspectives, and he's reaching out to all sorts of people. I like Bush. I'm glad he cut taxes and appointed conservatives and reached out to minorities. But I'm not going to sulk about having a new President. I'm somewhat ready for a change.