Increaisngly it seems the media are obsessing on legacy and the judgement of history and fitting this one in isn't going to be easy in terms of assessing his contribution. Rarely can such a manufactured puppet of the right wing machinary have been created and used more effectively.
Bush first came to the attention of the right wing intelligentsia as Governor for Texas of course, who reasoned correctly as things would turn out, that they could run him for the White House. Conventional wisdom was that Jeb Bush was felt to be the more promising and capable, whilst Dubya was widely regarded as a failed business person whose primary contribution would be to turn up at board meetings to tell crude jokes. He famously had a stint as a minor league baseball franchisee but had shown little appetite or capability for serious public office prior to becoming Governor. Indeed, he'd only ventured as far as Mexico for a 2 week vacation, and famously couldn't name the President of Pakistan when challenged. There was a palpable sense of the under qualified about him, that would haunt him throughout his term in office.
I'm half inclined to attribute his rise to the decadence and complacency that might have grown up around the Clinton administration. America it seemed wasn't too difficult to preside over, and the folksy Governor had a charisma that the altogether more wooden Al Gore didn't. People it seemed were more readily prepared to identify with Bush, who in turn was able to spin the illusion that he was some kind of anti-establishment Washington outsider. Quite how being the off-spring of a former President and an unremarkable Harvard graduate qualified him on this score I don't know, but he pulled it off.
To a large extent he came from the Taft wing of the party and played up to this Texan cowboy kind of image, which was actually at poles with his father who was much more on an internationalist. We'd thought that the Republican party had exorcised this component in the 50's when Eisenhower prevailed over Taft, but Bush seemed to re-invent this, and appealed to an isolationist element within the country that sought to put American interests first, second and third. It was interesting to see how many Reagan officials he appointed for instance, with only the somewhat uneasy Colin Powell presenting the link to his fathers administration. It's often said that Dick Cheney has been the most influential VP in history and there remained something of a hint that Bush was merely a front for others. Indeed, Bush took more holiday and fronted fewer press conferences than any other President in history. Thge news managament of the White House increasingly started to irk journalists who felt they were denied access to a President they felt wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, and only a favoured few it seemed were allowed to question him.
His term in office started with controversy of course as we all became familiar with 'hanging chads' and the reality that America had voted for someone who lost Florida and yet was sworn in as the 43rd President. Not surprisingly under the circumstances, his approval ratings were poor. He seems to have spent his first year delivering on his isolationsit philosophy as he systematically set about tearing up treaty after treaty. The real agenda wasn't too far way though.
I'm reminded of a Panorama programme that sought to explore the relationships between American Presidents and British Prime Ministers (its never been shown since) as the clue was there. Tony Bliar was interviewed about his first meeting with Bush at Camp David. Bush, he related drove down to meet him and invited the PM into the car with the question of "what do you want to talk about?". Blair admits to being a bit taken aback by this forthright style and parried the question with a polite "what do you want to talk about?". Bush replied with an instantaneous "Iraq". Blair tried to defend this as someone who was single minded and straight down to business etc Unfortunately, it looked too much like an obsessive mind who'd already embarked on an undisclosed agenda. Events would of course subsequently unfold thus, but at he time of airing no such hint really existed that Bush was on his 'crusade'.
No retrospective of Bush would be complete without his war on terrorism and Iraq, and the suspicion has long ago been established that this was a strategically poor judgement call, which was based around an oil snatch and the settling of a family feud. America it seemed however, lapped up this self-styled 'War President' with only Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks presenting any high profile level of criticism. In the immediate aftermath his popularity soared and the rest of the world held its breath as it was obvious to most of us what was going on. Colin Powells pathetic attempt to justify military action at the UN only seemed to underline the flimsiness of the administrations case, based as it was on unreliable dissidents accounts and artists impressions of what a mobile germ factory might look like, if they could ever find one.
At one level I'm inclined to say Iraq was a massive miscalculation, but since he achieved his objectives I'm not so sure. It was inevitable that people would die in their thousands, but I'm equally sure that Bush saw them as dispendable in the pursuit of his undeclared objectives. What he'd done of course is wipe out a secular regime that had more to fear from the rise of Islamic extremism than most. Essentially, Iraq would have been one of his most natural allies in the region, and through supression AQ had never got as much as a toe hold in the country until Bush intervened and help grow them.
Rarely can an American President have been so divisive and this was probably epitomised with his now infamous (and lazy idea) that if you don't support him, then you're supporting terrorism. This was a man who constantly railed against the rest of the world for their lack of support, yet seems to have over-looked the number of treaties and agreements he reneged on, as well as other protocols he failed to commit America to. Indeed, he consistantly missed the opportunity to exploit 9/11 as an international crime, and pecuiliarly kept insisting that it was an exclusively American affair.
For the most part Europeans it seemed were acutely aware that there was a dangerous man in the Oval Office, and we collectively held our breath it seemed for quite a few years hoping that he wouldn't go off at the deep end. Anything, it seemed was possible. I'll await some of the retorspectives with interest after he leaves office, as I suspect we might learn a few things we didn't know about just how close he took us into some truly terrifying scenarios. Relieved of office, it is just about possible that some of the key players might be a little bit more forthcoming in the future as they try and put their own contributions into a historically favourable light.
In trying to say what his biggest contribution has been however, I'm at a loss. It might be too early to assess where his free-market economic policy has taken us. Personally I think America stands on the precipace, and the global domination that remained a central tenet to Bush supporting groups such as the PNAC looks more remote than it did 8 years ago. The rise of China and the remergence of a newly confident Russia bear testimony to this. He's looked particularly poor in the last 3 months and gives the impression of having no grasp or connection with what's going on in America. His utterances have looked feable, and everytime he opens his mouth the markets dive further. In many respects, it's not too disimilar to his New Orleans fiasco where he elected to play golf rather than take control of FEMA. I'm still struck by the image of him addressing a crowd of relief workers in an aircraft hanger decked out in his bomber jacket. The stage managed event had been well choereographed, the helicopters were spotless (clearly hadn't flown anywhere) as were the other vehicles. The relief workers were wearing overalls that looked as if they'd come straight out of the packaging (provided they were relief workers and not actors)
His legacy is unclear to me and I'm half inclined to site the growth of christian fundamentalism alongside the mobilisation of religon as a political force. I remember a Fox news contributor trying to lambast a British journalist over the fact that we started a civil war based on the divine right of kings when it was suggested that no other western country could become so beholden to religon. The point they should have made in rebutal however, was that this was 350 years ago and as such there is something medieval about the way Bush has managed to get this aspect absorbed into the mainstream. His father was of course defeated by Pat Robertson in a primary which first gave rise to the hint that there was a growing and malignent threat from organised religon in the political theatre. Bush senior was of course a former Director of the CIA and it was perhaps no coincidence that a whole series of spoilers regarding Robertson mysteriously emerged after this defeat that effectively ended his run at the White House.
So having taken an ill-advised route into an unnecessary war, and presided over an economic collapse which has more than a hint of his own finger prints on it, I'm inclined to suggest he's the worst President in my living memory (Carter would be close, but was largely a prisoner to external forces) - Bush hasn't been, and inheritted a strong economy. His approval ratings have of course returned to whence they came, but to no small extent it is definately mission accomplished given that he never had his objectives set on much more than preserving business interests of a cosy elite.
Well done President Cheney, you duped the country
Bush first came to the attention of the right wing intelligentsia as Governor for Texas of course, who reasoned correctly as things would turn out, that they could run him for the White House. Conventional wisdom was that Jeb Bush was felt to be the more promising and capable, whilst Dubya was widely regarded as a failed business person whose primary contribution would be to turn up at board meetings to tell crude jokes. He famously had a stint as a minor league baseball franchisee but had shown little appetite or capability for serious public office prior to becoming Governor. Indeed, he'd only ventured as far as Mexico for a 2 week vacation, and famously couldn't name the President of Pakistan when challenged. There was a palpable sense of the under qualified about him, that would haunt him throughout his term in office.
I'm half inclined to attribute his rise to the decadence and complacency that might have grown up around the Clinton administration. America it seemed wasn't too difficult to preside over, and the folksy Governor had a charisma that the altogether more wooden Al Gore didn't. People it seemed were more readily prepared to identify with Bush, who in turn was able to spin the illusion that he was some kind of anti-establishment Washington outsider. Quite how being the off-spring of a former President and an unremarkable Harvard graduate qualified him on this score I don't know, but he pulled it off.
To a large extent he came from the Taft wing of the party and played up to this Texan cowboy kind of image, which was actually at poles with his father who was much more on an internationalist. We'd thought that the Republican party had exorcised this component in the 50's when Eisenhower prevailed over Taft, but Bush seemed to re-invent this, and appealed to an isolationist element within the country that sought to put American interests first, second and third. It was interesting to see how many Reagan officials he appointed for instance, with only the somewhat uneasy Colin Powell presenting the link to his fathers administration. It's often said that Dick Cheney has been the most influential VP in history and there remained something of a hint that Bush was merely a front for others. Indeed, Bush took more holiday and fronted fewer press conferences than any other President in history. Thge news managament of the White House increasingly started to irk journalists who felt they were denied access to a President they felt wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, and only a favoured few it seemed were allowed to question him.
His term in office started with controversy of course as we all became familiar with 'hanging chads' and the reality that America had voted for someone who lost Florida and yet was sworn in as the 43rd President. Not surprisingly under the circumstances, his approval ratings were poor. He seems to have spent his first year delivering on his isolationsit philosophy as he systematically set about tearing up treaty after treaty. The real agenda wasn't too far way though.
I'm reminded of a Panorama programme that sought to explore the relationships between American Presidents and British Prime Ministers (its never been shown since) as the clue was there. Tony Bliar was interviewed about his first meeting with Bush at Camp David. Bush, he related drove down to meet him and invited the PM into the car with the question of "what do you want to talk about?". Blair admits to being a bit taken aback by this forthright style and parried the question with a polite "what do you want to talk about?". Bush replied with an instantaneous "Iraq". Blair tried to defend this as someone who was single minded and straight down to business etc Unfortunately, it looked too much like an obsessive mind who'd already embarked on an undisclosed agenda. Events would of course subsequently unfold thus, but at he time of airing no such hint really existed that Bush was on his 'crusade'.
No retrospective of Bush would be complete without his war on terrorism and Iraq, and the suspicion has long ago been established that this was a strategically poor judgement call, which was based around an oil snatch and the settling of a family feud. America it seemed however, lapped up this self-styled 'War President' with only Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks presenting any high profile level of criticism. In the immediate aftermath his popularity soared and the rest of the world held its breath as it was obvious to most of us what was going on. Colin Powells pathetic attempt to justify military action at the UN only seemed to underline the flimsiness of the administrations case, based as it was on unreliable dissidents accounts and artists impressions of what a mobile germ factory might look like, if they could ever find one.
At one level I'm inclined to say Iraq was a massive miscalculation, but since he achieved his objectives I'm not so sure. It was inevitable that people would die in their thousands, but I'm equally sure that Bush saw them as dispendable in the pursuit of his undeclared objectives. What he'd done of course is wipe out a secular regime that had more to fear from the rise of Islamic extremism than most. Essentially, Iraq would have been one of his most natural allies in the region, and through supression AQ had never got as much as a toe hold in the country until Bush intervened and help grow them.
Rarely can an American President have been so divisive and this was probably epitomised with his now infamous (and lazy idea) that if you don't support him, then you're supporting terrorism. This was a man who constantly railed against the rest of the world for their lack of support, yet seems to have over-looked the number of treaties and agreements he reneged on, as well as other protocols he failed to commit America to. Indeed, he consistantly missed the opportunity to exploit 9/11 as an international crime, and pecuiliarly kept insisting that it was an exclusively American affair.
For the most part Europeans it seemed were acutely aware that there was a dangerous man in the Oval Office, and we collectively held our breath it seemed for quite a few years hoping that he wouldn't go off at the deep end. Anything, it seemed was possible. I'll await some of the retorspectives with interest after he leaves office, as I suspect we might learn a few things we didn't know about just how close he took us into some truly terrifying scenarios. Relieved of office, it is just about possible that some of the key players might be a little bit more forthcoming in the future as they try and put their own contributions into a historically favourable light.
In trying to say what his biggest contribution has been however, I'm at a loss. It might be too early to assess where his free-market economic policy has taken us. Personally I think America stands on the precipace, and the global domination that remained a central tenet to Bush supporting groups such as the PNAC looks more remote than it did 8 years ago. The rise of China and the remergence of a newly confident Russia bear testimony to this. He's looked particularly poor in the last 3 months and gives the impression of having no grasp or connection with what's going on in America. His utterances have looked feable, and everytime he opens his mouth the markets dive further. In many respects, it's not too disimilar to his New Orleans fiasco where he elected to play golf rather than take control of FEMA. I'm still struck by the image of him addressing a crowd of relief workers in an aircraft hanger decked out in his bomber jacket. The stage managed event had been well choereographed, the helicopters were spotless (clearly hadn't flown anywhere) as were the other vehicles. The relief workers were wearing overalls that looked as if they'd come straight out of the packaging (provided they were relief workers and not actors)
His legacy is unclear to me and I'm half inclined to site the growth of christian fundamentalism alongside the mobilisation of religon as a political force. I remember a Fox news contributor trying to lambast a British journalist over the fact that we started a civil war based on the divine right of kings when it was suggested that no other western country could become so beholden to religon. The point they should have made in rebutal however, was that this was 350 years ago and as such there is something medieval about the way Bush has managed to get this aspect absorbed into the mainstream. His father was of course defeated by Pat Robertson in a primary which first gave rise to the hint that there was a growing and malignent threat from organised religon in the political theatre. Bush senior was of course a former Director of the CIA and it was perhaps no coincidence that a whole series of spoilers regarding Robertson mysteriously emerged after this defeat that effectively ended his run at the White House.
So having taken an ill-advised route into an unnecessary war, and presided over an economic collapse which has more than a hint of his own finger prints on it, I'm inclined to suggest he's the worst President in my living memory (Carter would be close, but was largely a prisoner to external forces) - Bush hasn't been, and inheritted a strong economy. His approval ratings have of course returned to whence they came, but to no small extent it is definately mission accomplished given that he never had his objectives set on much more than preserving business interests of a cosy elite.
Well done President Cheney, you duped the country
Last edited:
