Posted by
stevo on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:05:31 PM
I have appreciated the responses to my first entry and am reflecting
upon their helpful insights. I realized (with the help of one of those
comments) that I should not have left our President with merely that
negative spin. He deserves much more credit than that--hence, the title
of the entry.
President Bush has not had a free and easy-going presidency. Unlike the
previous administration, he did not have the luxury of offering
lip-service to serious foreign policy issues, reinforced by token
political maneuverings and a more general policy of appeasement. When
the U.S.S Cole was bombed years ago, President Clinton needed only lob
a few missiles in a few scattered directions and assure the public that
the economy was still sound, while Osama bin Laden remained at large.
Rather, as a new movie will remind us in a few days, one of the
greatest symbols of our economic liberty and prosperity was ruthlessly
cut down, along with thousands of lives (not to forget the Pentagon and
Flight 93 as well). Our new President, who had staked his reputation on
compassionate conservatism and was making overtures at vast, bipartisan
compromise on a variety of issues, was inextricably placed in one of
those rare moments in American history. Per Goldwater's classic line
"...a time of choosing", President Bush was given the choice of
ineptitude and insincerity in the name of bipartisanship or showing
principled courage that would benefit our country (and the causes of
freedom) at the expense of personal popularity. He chose the latter
course.
I am not arguing that we should pity President Bush for the position
that September 11th put him in. Rather, we should be reluctant to
criticize the so-called "Bush Doctrine" as hasty or unrealistic (as
many seem now to believe). President Bush had the opportunity to remain
the compassionate conservative and perhaps usher much of conservatism
into a new era, but he chose instead to embrace principle and the
well-being of our nation's posterity. He set the compassionate domestic
agenda aside so that he could lead the unpopular and protracted fight
against those who would rob the world of peace, freedom, and security.
While I embrace the compassionate conservative agenda in principle, I
have not been pleased with its practice by the Bush Administration.
That said however, the agenda could have perhaps been much more
successful and palatable if the President had been more selfish and not
alienated the Left with his foreign policy. He could have traded his
firm foreign policy for greater domestic achievements.
Would I make that trade? Certainly not. The President embraced
self-sacrifice rather than shallow popularity. That defines true heroes
in my book. He has made his choice. I have made mine. Despite my
numerous disagreements with his domestic agenda, I choose to support
the President who has sacrificed his legacy on the altar of principle.