Bush joins FDR, Reagan in landmark leader club
March 6, 2004
BY THOMAS ROESER
His enemies fault him for many reasons, but of this there is no doubt: With 10 months left in his first term, George W. Bush has already become one of a handful of the most important presidents in U.S. history. He toppled two pro-terrorist regimes, sparing America from further incidents of terrorism; revived the economy, and now leads a defense of traditional values by initiating a constitutional amendment to prevent runaway courts from junking the multi-millennia-old concept of marriage.
Any one of these actions would justify him as a memorable chief executive. (FDR supplied confidence to overcome Depression qualms and win World War II; Ronald Reagan bounced us back from recession and won the Cold War.) Considered together, Bush's attainments certify that his energetic presidency has landmark significance.
Despite slender experience as a Texas governor and the marginal nature of his election, he has steered away from the timidity of conventional Beltway tactics, exerting the independence that marks great presidencies. He governs as if he had defeated Al Gore by millions of votes. Yes, his jaunty confidence spurs epithets -- that he is a cowboy, of limited intellect, a religious fanatic -- but that proves he drives his opponents to distraction.
Not that I have always agreed with Bush, but a president with deep faith in God does what he believes is best, confident the results will bear him out. Others would have delayed the invasion of Iraq, would probably have dickered to gain more international support. Not Bush. He dealt the cards in brilliant poker-playing fashion reminiscent of FDR, first leaking word that he needed no Capitol Hill vote, then going to the U.N. Security Council -- not to seek approval but to serve notice that he would not be held captive by them. Finally, he tossed the hot potato to Congress, with the words, ''I can't imagine an elected member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, 'I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision.''' Congress folded, endorsing Bush's doctrine of preemption four weeks before the Security Council gave in. When the Democrats balked on homeland security, Bush capitalized on it, took their reluctance to the voters in 2002 and won a GOP-majority Senate. That is the kind of guts you get when a president is determined to lead, not follow consensus.
Twice he gave Congress tax cut programs much larger than it was prepared to accept. The liberals growled about favors for the rich, but Bush has won. The unemployment rate today is 5.6 percent, with 1.4 million civilian jobs created in the past year.
All the while, the United States has been beset with culture wars. His conservative base stirred discontentedly for his delay in espousal of a federal marriage amendment, but he chose the right time. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out the Texas anti-sodomy law; still, he waited on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Only when it declared that nothing short of gay marriage, not even civil unions, can be accepted, did Bush act, with an amendment of two sentences: the first restricting marriage to the union between a man and a woman, and the second enjoining the courts from imposing a solution.
There have been some mistakes in his administration. I would have wished he had vetoed more, that he had opposed the McCain-Feingold campaign ''reform'' bill that endangers free speech, that he had been more penurious with prescription drug benefits, that he had not allowed himself to be badgered like a defense witness by Tim Russert on ''Meet the Press.'' But overall, Bush has been superb. James Monroe gave us the doctrine of no foreign intrusion in our hemisphere; Reagan the will to overcome the Soviet Union, and Bush the doctrine of preemption to fight terrorism and the will to go it alone if necessary.
The November election will determine whether he shall continue, or whether our security will be left to a President John Kerry who (a) views anti-terrorism as ''primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation'' (b) will raise taxes and (c) will surrender in the culture war. Not since Lincoln vs. McClellan has there been a more pivotal choice. I'll take my stand now: Keep Bush.
suntimes.com |
