A "Bush Republican"...is that a Dirty Word?
O.k. so it's been a while since we posted. Sorry, dear readers. But three in a matter of days, you have to admit...impressive. Also there's playoff basketball on, I'm busy. Enough lollygagging though. Down to business.
A President's time in office can never truly be evaluated until after that time is over. Immediate feelings must give way to cool, reasoned judgment and examination. Reagan for instance was detested by the left (and many moderates) by the time he was leaving office. Even his base had tired of the Iran Contra scandal and eight years of "the gipper." However, almost twenty years out, he is praised as a cornerstone of the Republican party, as every would be candidate strives to be labeled a "Reagan Republican." Nixon is another example. As much as people were disgusted and angry at him in his disgrace, not many had any idea what an effect his departure would have on the office and the nation. Only time can give you perspective.
That brings us to the current President. What will his legacy be? In twenty years will pundits be talking about the stain left on the office by W's terms? Will they speak about the quagmire that is the Middle East and lay the blame at Bush's feet? Or will the next generation of conservative politicos label themselves "Bush Republicans" (and I don't mean because of their last names)? Only time can give you perspective, but we don't have time. I want to publish this this morning, so I'm going to use my imagination...and some political common sense.
The Bush Doctrine -- The single most important thing to come from Bush's time in office (be it good or bad) is this new school of foreign policy. No it's not exactly new, and no it wasn't really Bush's when he first went into office. But he and his team have made it this nation's policy. For good or bad, Bush and his legacy hinge on this. The outcome of the Iraq war, and to a lesser degree the next few years events in Iran and Palestine, will decide President Bush's place in history. For the first time in our history, the United States struck first. If we can clean up the mess, and help to foster a stable, democratic government right in the middle of one of the most intolerant, and turbulent areas of the globe, then Bush will be remembered as a hero.
In large part this is completely out of Bush's hands. How much longer will the insurgency fight? How quickly can Iraq form a new government? Will tribal differences tear their new nation apart? There's not a lot he can do about that. Also a lot depends on the '06 and '08 elections. If Bush gets a Democratic congress or a more evenly split congress, he can expect headache after headache for the next two years. If the Democrats were to take over, they will almost certainly try to impeach him. While I am sure they wouldn't be successful, it would leave a lasting sour taste in the mouth of the electorate. It would probably hurt the Dems in the long term, but it would hurt Bush badly in the short term. The '08 election also should figure prominently in Bush's legacy. If McCain were to win, Bush's foreign policy would be largely continued. Perhaps better managed depending on who McCain puts at DOD and State. The point is that even though the victory could be largely McCain's, Bush' s theory would be supported in the history books. On the other hand, if the Dems take office in '08 his policies (both at home and abroad) would be largely overturned. Chances are good that America would assume a downplayed role on the international scene, concurring with more opinions from the EU instead of setting agenda's ourselves. Bush would be looked back at as a backward thinker. A man not in step with the "World of Nations." That is unless we suffered another terrorist attack after those policies were in place.
Bush has made sweeping changes in domestic policy also. No Child Left Behind, tax cuts, etc. However, Bush is a self described "wartime President" and will be remembered as such. The failure of some of his initiatives to even get off the ground (Social Security private accounts), will be largely forgotten as will his successes on the domestic front. What will be remembered is the move of the Republican Party, under Bush, away from fiscal discipline. While small attempts are being made (mostly symbolic) to change this now. There is no doubt we are spending more as a nation under Bush than under Clinton. For the deficit hawks and the fiscal conservatives, this is one of Bush's most painful legacies. A "Bush Republican" is one that won't tax, but he also won't hold on to the pocketbook. The Republican party will probably be dealing with the fallout of this newfound split in idealology for the next couple of decades. Will history see him as a kinder, gentler Republican? Or as a drunken frat boy, blowing his trust fund? Or maybe as a man put in impossible circumstances, fighting a war, but expected to cut the budget as well. Only time will tell.
I'm sure both my compadres have a lot to add about their opinion of Bush's lasting legacy. I hope you will as well.
A President's time in office can never truly be evaluated until after that time is over. Immediate feelings must give way to cool, reasoned judgment and examination. Reagan for instance was detested by the left (and many moderates) by the time he was leaving office. Even his base had tired of the Iran Contra scandal and eight years of "the gipper." However, almost twenty years out, he is praised as a cornerstone of the Republican party, as every would be candidate strives to be labeled a "Reagan Republican." Nixon is another example. As much as people were disgusted and angry at him in his disgrace, not many had any idea what an effect his departure would have on the office and the nation. Only time can give you perspective.
That brings us to the current President. What will his legacy be? In twenty years will pundits be talking about the stain left on the office by W's terms? Will they speak about the quagmire that is the Middle East and lay the blame at Bush's feet? Or will the next generation of conservative politicos label themselves "Bush Republicans" (and I don't mean because of their last names)? Only time can give you perspective, but we don't have time. I want to publish this this morning, so I'm going to use my imagination...and some political common sense.
The Bush Doctrine -- The single most important thing to come from Bush's time in office (be it good or bad) is this new school of foreign policy. No it's not exactly new, and no it wasn't really Bush's when he first went into office. But he and his team have made it this nation's policy. For good or bad, Bush and his legacy hinge on this. The outcome of the Iraq war, and to a lesser degree the next few years events in Iran and Palestine, will decide President Bush's place in history. For the first time in our history, the United States struck first. If we can clean up the mess, and help to foster a stable, democratic government right in the middle of one of the most intolerant, and turbulent areas of the globe, then Bush will be remembered as a hero.
In large part this is completely out of Bush's hands. How much longer will the insurgency fight? How quickly can Iraq form a new government? Will tribal differences tear their new nation apart? There's not a lot he can do about that. Also a lot depends on the '06 and '08 elections. If Bush gets a Democratic congress or a more evenly split congress, he can expect headache after headache for the next two years. If the Democrats were to take over, they will almost certainly try to impeach him. While I am sure they wouldn't be successful, it would leave a lasting sour taste in the mouth of the electorate. It would probably hurt the Dems in the long term, but it would hurt Bush badly in the short term. The '08 election also should figure prominently in Bush's legacy. If McCain were to win, Bush's foreign policy would be largely continued. Perhaps better managed depending on who McCain puts at DOD and State. The point is that even though the victory could be largely McCain's, Bush' s theory would be supported in the history books. On the other hand, if the Dems take office in '08 his policies (both at home and abroad) would be largely overturned. Chances are good that America would assume a downplayed role on the international scene, concurring with more opinions from the EU instead of setting agenda's ourselves. Bush would be looked back at as a backward thinker. A man not in step with the "World of Nations." That is unless we suffered another terrorist attack after those policies were in place.
Bush has made sweeping changes in domestic policy also. No Child Left Behind, tax cuts, etc. However, Bush is a self described "wartime President" and will be remembered as such. The failure of some of his initiatives to even get off the ground (Social Security private accounts), will be largely forgotten as will his successes on the domestic front. What will be remembered is the move of the Republican Party, under Bush, away from fiscal discipline. While small attempts are being made (mostly symbolic) to change this now. There is no doubt we are spending more as a nation under Bush than under Clinton. For the deficit hawks and the fiscal conservatives, this is one of Bush's most painful legacies. A "Bush Republican" is one that won't tax, but he also won't hold on to the pocketbook. The Republican party will probably be dealing with the fallout of this newfound split in idealology for the next couple of decades. Will history see him as a kinder, gentler Republican? Or as a drunken frat boy, blowing his trust fund? Or maybe as a man put in impossible circumstances, fighting a war, but expected to cut the budget as well. Only time will tell.
I'm sure both my compadres have a lot to add about their opinion of Bush's lasting legacy. I hope you will as well.
posted by Daddy Rogue at 12:34 AM
1 Comments:
putting something together right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home