Bush made a number of points in last Thursday's televised farewell address to the nation:
- the singular defining moment of his Presidency: 9/11 and his success in keeping the nation free from a reoccurrence of the terrorist attacks during the remainder of his 2 terms
- the peaceful transition of power, a distinctive characteristic of American democracy, to the nation's first black President, a remarkable accomplishment given America's problematic past with slavery and civil rights struggles
- his domestic policy accomplishments, in particular, No Child Left Behind and Medicare drug prescription benefit
- his successful judicial nominations, especially Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito
- his efforts to support the growth of democracy, notably the deposition of rogue governments in Afghanistan and Iraq and their replacement with a Middle East model of democracy
Bush also recognized that he had made some unpopular decisions (implying the increasingly unpopular Iraq occupation and his 2007 surge decision) but asked for the understanding he had acted in good faith in making hard choices he felt to be in the interests of the United States.
In yesterday's farewell radio broadcast, Bush started by thanking the American people for his opportunity to serve as President. He does warn, however, against a sense of complacency given no attacks over the past 7 years since the horrific events of 9/11.
Analysis
First of all, I think Bush is too modest to say this himself, but after Bill Clinton's narcissistic behavior and immoral, illegal abuse of power in violating and covering up serial sexual harassment incidents (even those involving mutual consent, such as Monica Lewinsky), the country was eager for a President to restore honor and dignity to the Executive Office. Above all, Bush occupied the office honorably with due reverence, dignity, and respect, truly his father's son.
What makes this all the more remarkable was his very difficult start, starting with Gore's unprecedented attempt to overturn the 2000 Florida vote results and thus the election itself by violating the due protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision. (Subsequent independent media recounts under the Freedom of Information Act verified the Florida machine recount confirmation of Bush's victory.) In addition, the Senate Democrats further roiled the partisan atmosphere by flipping then Republican Senator Jim Jeffords to their caucus, which in turn flipped control of the Senate back to the Democrats. President Bush had run in part on his bipartisan success with the Texas legislature, hoping to emulate the same in Washington; I don't think that Bush ever really had a shot, in part, because there's a world of difference between Austin and Washington D.C.
My analysis wants to go beyond the common talking points and stress certain nuances:
- Bush wasn't a Democrat. In listing this as a positive point, I am not engaging in mere partisan rhetoric but more of a conservative perspective. I think Bush and the Republicans had to fight to implement the Petraeus surge strategy in 2007 over the dead weight of the Democrats, whom could cynically exploit for political purposes the unpopularity of our Iraq occupation without having to be held responsible for the consequences of a unilateral withdrawal, in particular the high probability of a regional war. Would the Democrats have been more constructive if they had been in the White House instead? I'm sure that the memories of Chicago in 1968 haven't gone away. But I want to go beyond that in revisiting the fact that the Democrats had lobbied for pressure on lenders to open up the promise of homeownership for lower-income people without savings for a conventional down payment; the result was a housing bubble, and the inevitable bursting of the bubble resulted in the current down cycle. I think inaction on taxes following the 2000-2002 Nasdaq crash (including a tax cut for the job creator class), large energy tax hikes (e.g., carbon-based) and ideological rejections of nuclear power plants and our own oil and gas development efforts, reopening the health insurance debate for another attempt of a government takeover, aggressive government program expansion, and even more micromanagement of the economy (rules, regulations, taxes) just as our private sector is girding itself against tough global competition would have resulted in a much bleaker economic picture than we're facing today.
- Bush has enjoyed certain key successes on international/ trade efforts. There was a quantum leap forward in aid to Africa, especially in terms of medicines for HIV and other infections/diseases, which has made a real impact on the lives of Africans. Libya renounced its nuclear arms program. Bush worked with other nations in isolating North Korea and Iran over their pursuit or production of nuclear weapon technology. Bush also negotiated to open up new markets for American goods and services (including treaties awaiting Congressional approval with South Korea and Colombia).
- Bush did not exercise the veto or the bully pulpit. Bush never jawboned the Republican-controlled Congress (2003-2006) into holding down spending (at least beyond measures such as SCHIP); in addition, he never really honestly confront the costs associated with the liberation of Iraq and its aftermath or, for that matter, the spending associated with a new entitlement he himself pushed through, the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
- Bush did not take full advantage of a GOP-controlled Congress. There were a number of missed opportunities, including more comprehensive border security in the aftermath of 9/11, streamlining and instituting best practices in government operations, an earlier end to a moratorium on offshore drilling (instead of a reactive response, when oil prices reached $140/barrel), more globally competitive business tax brackets, expeding approvals on nuclear power plants, breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had become a de facto duopoly with an unfair business advantage over the private sector, and easing the costly small business burden associated onerous government rules, regulations, and reporting requirements (in particular, Sarbanes-Oxley).
- Bush was not fully engaged with Congress, in particular the Republicans. It's very difficult to understand, in particular, on two key issues, immigration in 2007 and the financial bailout in 2008, how Bush did not anticipate resistance from his own party (the Senate Republicans on the first issue, the House Republicans on the second). In addition, Bush started off in 2005 tackling social security with a limited mandate; when one tackles a sacred cow like social security, you need a mutual buy-in, such as what Reagan did in his first term with the Democrats. I think that early in a term, a President needs to build up his credibility to deliver before tackling politically risky issues like entitlement reform. I do philosophically sympathize with the concept of allowing taxpayers more control over their own contributions; however, I think a more achievable goal would have been raising the internal rate of return of the reserves by allowing managed diversification into other asset classes, such as dividend-paying stocks; I think this would have been more politically acceptable given the fact of diversified state and local government pension funds. But Bush had largely tied his hands taking tax increases off the table; at this point, Democrats simply equated investing with gambling (not bothering to explain why they supported tax-advantaged "gambling" in 401K's and other popular retirement vehicles), misleadingly attacked that senior citizen benefits were at risk (what the Bush proposal did was to change the nature and timing of younger worker benefits, since their investments in alternative benefits would be offset with lower standard benefit payouts in the future), and let the politically powerful status quo interests (e.g., AARP) derail the proposal. Bush's high-profile failure early in his second term, with a GOP-controlled Congress, put into question Bush's own ability to deliver as party leader and started the inevitable talk of a lame-duck status.
- Bush's public relations efforts went AWOL. Abu Ghiraib, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, and torture policy were so ineptly handled, one has to question the so-called political genius of Karl Rove and other advisors. The argument of media conservatives (e.g., Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and others) that the end (no terrorist attacks) justifies the means simply defers the issue of where you draw the line. Of course, the liberals are being hypocritical by not focusing on the more substantive human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein. But even a conservative like myself whom believes in the Bill of Rights and inherently distrusts the encroachment of Big Government recoils from the fact that the White House was pushing back. Add to that the mystifying "heck of a job, Brownie" praise in the aftermath of the botched total government (local, state and federal) response to the Hurricane Katrina tragedy, and Bush was seen as out of touch by any television viewer over the previous 4 days. But in part, I feel the President's approval ratings took as big a hit as they did because the White House did not seem to stand up to the polemical rhetoric from Capitol Hill.
- Bush failed to address the big issues. Name it--the escalating twin deficits (federal and trade); a crumbling infrastructure; out-of-control federal spending; a broken worker visa and immigration program; the increased dependence on foreign energy producers; international purchasers of US Treasury debt, and foreign-produced goods and services; entitlement funding crises (Medicare and social security); an overextended, unaffordable global footprint; exploding number of family bankruptcies forced by catastrophic healthcare costs; a failing inner city public education system, etc.
- Bush relied too much on his Texas connections. The high-profile appointments/ failures of Harriet Miers (Supreme Court) and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales come immediately to mind. Whereas loyalty is always a quality to be admired, these nominees were clearly unsuitable and called into question Bush's judgment and credibility.
- Bush did not exercise timely management review and decisionmaking. Despite the fact John McCain and others were arguing as early as 2003 that the military footprint in Iraq was inadequate to stabilize Iraq, Bush seemed to muddle along, reluctant to challenge the advice of the military command in Iraq, simply imploring the Congress and the American public to "stay the course". The decision to dismiss the Iraq Army (among others) seemed to be indicative of a lack of planning for the occupation and well-known differences among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Bush's belated response (after the 2006 election, flipping control of the Congress to the Democrats) to fire Rumsfeld and announce a change in Iraq occupation strategy is hard to explain. A second key example is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I recall that the President was imploring Democratic Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco to evacuate New Orleans, and yet we are left with the memories of Nagin's decision to leave unoccupied buses in a low-lying area to be flooded out and Blanco's blocking the infusion of relief supplies into New Orleans. Still, Bush was reluctant to pressure the dysfunctional local and state leadership. Whereas the Coast Guard's performance during the disaster was exemplary, Bush himself seemed out of touch on what was playing out in the national media, in sharp contrast, say, to Mayor Rudy Giuliani's sure-footed leadership in New York City in those crucial hours and days following the 9/11 tragedies.
- Bush did not communicate in a clear, consistent way. We need only to recall VP candidate Governor Sarah Palin's inability to respond to ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson's question regarding the Bush doctrine. Many conservative commentators sought to excuse Palin's bluffed response, noting that the Bush doctrine had shifted over time (including a rationale to promote democracy as a region-stabilizing alternative to rogue autocratic nations). Similarly, Bush ran on a platform which sharply questioned Clinton's nation-building efforts in eastern Europe, but found himself in his own nation-building exercise, one in fact which his father attempted to avoid by not ousting Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War; it's insufficient to simply say "9/11 changed everything". Bush also never really explained the decision to liberate Iraq versus other rogue nations (e.g., North Korea and Iran) actively seeking a nuclear program. In particular, Iraq was largely contained by no-fly zones and economic sanctions. I do understand that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, invaded two neighboring countries without provocation, and did not comply with Gulf War ceasefire terms and some 17 UN resolutions; I do not doubt the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power, but Bush needed to do a better job explaining the timing and the nature of the intervention (vs., say, our approach in supporting the Afghanistan resistance).
- Bush violated some key conservative positions. In particular, Bush's lack of fiscal conservatism, his key advocacy for a new entitlement (Medicare prescription drug coverage), his subsidies for the ethanol industry, and his massive federal intervention in the wake of last year's financial tsunami, including the recent auto industry bailout, are difficult to explain.
On balance, I think that President Bush has been a consequential leader and a good President. I believe that this former Texas governor instinctively provided just the right leadership we needed after one of the most traumatic days in American history; he faced other difficult issues as well: the aftermath of the Nasdaq crash, the Enron and related corporate scandals, an uphill battle to push forward a change of strategy in Iraq (which turned out to be a prescient move), and, of course, the financial tsunami. Despite an unprecented virulent political opposition because of a disputed Florida election, Bush treated members of both parties with dignity and respect and provided an extraordinary transition for President-elect Obama, despite his own chilly reception from the Clinton White House (deferred until after the Supreme Court decision) and marked by unprofessional staff behavior, such as a missing 'W' on keyboards.
Thank you for your service, Mr. President.
