Harvard Independent - Forum
Issue: 11/06/03
Bush-whacked
By Chris Re
I always wanted to love George W. Bush. Truly, I did. After eight years of crippling scandals, irresponsible Supreme Court decisions, and a weak-kneed foreign policy that allowed Iraq to throw out weapons inspectors and North Korea to start building nuclear weapons, I was ready to love anybody Republican. Perhaps that was my mistake.
The warning signs were there from the beginning. The prodigal son of a one-term president, Bush went into the Republican primaries against Arizona's maverick Senator John McCain of Arizona, an experienced and principled conservative, Bush had precious little to recommend him. He was the prodigal son of a one-term president. True, Bush was more solidly conservative, both fiscally and morally, than the senator. But McCain, a former pilot and prisoner in Vietnam who has publicly used racial slurs against the Communist country and its subjects, was hardly a bleeding-heart. Bush was more of a safe bet, but McCain could better energize the party.
None of that mattered, of course. As primary after primary rolled along, it was clear that the Republican establishment was nominating Bush. But that was alright, I thought.; at least he wasn't Al Gore: At least he wasn't Al Gore, an incumbent Vice-President sitting on one of the most prosperous economies in history who inexplicably decided to run as a radical. Lock-box this, privacy rights that; looking at Gore's platform you could have sworn the country was in the throes of the Great Depression or Jim Crow. America must be liberated! Al Gore, save us! Thanks, I thought, but no thanks. I couldn't vote back then, but if I could have, my ballot would've gone for Bush.
Yes, he was dimwitted. That can't be denied. But what of it? Reagan wasn't exactly the most brilliant guy, and the country turned out alright (stop smirking, bleeding hearts!). Besides, nobody looks smart on campaign. Certainly not that hillbilly from Arkansas; and definitely not those polished politicians running for the Democratic nomination next year, every one of whom looked dazed and confused, cowering and teary-eyed, under Chris Mathew's glare at the recent Hardball tapings. The image of the White House can rub off on a man. Reagan didn't suddenly get smarter before giving the Challenger speech; he just had more resources, like the seal of the President of the United States on the wall behind him. I had similar hopes for Bush.
But almost immediately, the new president punctured these illusions. The warning signs continued to pop up, this time with a sickening "Oh no, what have we done!" flavor to them. Bush slowly withdrew behind his handlers. He avoided every situation which could possibly involve original thought or critical challenge to his policies. Last week, he heroically held his first press-conference in two and a half months. This secrecy and silence became even more disturbing during the Iraq War. Conservatives for eight years had envied Clinton's use of the White House bully pulpit; now with both houses of Congress and the American people behind him, this president was hiding from reporters during wartime, allowing the nattering nabobs to criticize unopposed.
This is not conservative leadership. Conservative presidents like the Great Communicator and Bush Sr., although often dishonest, at least responded to criticism. Bush Jr. just ignores it, repeating the same trite message with the same clueless smirk. It is antithetical to the small-government, freedom-loving ethos of the Republican Party that Bush continues to shroud his policies and positions in secrecy and incoherence, shielding them from accountability.
REST AT harvardindependent.com |
