Having just witnessed (via television, I hasten to add) today’s coronation festivities in Washington, D.C., my mind naturally adverted to Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, the great nineteenth-century compendium of anecdotes about herd behavior in the species homo sapiens by Charles Mackay. Doubtless, as the new administration takes charge, we will have plenty of occasion to savor the contemporary pertinence of Mr. Mackay’s trip through human irrationality, but for the moment I want to pause to pay homage to one of the most unfairly abused men in American political history, George W. Bush. Not that I think Mr. Bush’s tenure was beyond criticism. Far from it, as the phrases “prescription drugs for seniors” or “no child left behind” (among others) vividly remind us. But the Bush administration had real accomplishments, and I was happy that NRO decided to commemorate those accomplishments with a chrestomathy of “thank yous” from various writers, including myself. Like several others, I singled out the president’s success in keeping American interests safe from terrorism after the attacks of 9/11. It really was an extraordinary achievement. And note that not only was the United States itself not attacked again, but neither were our interests abroad: there were no more USS Coles, no more U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, no more Marine barracks incinerated. As I mentioned, there are some people who insist on regarding this as a sort of accident, a divine (or at least fortunate) dispensation. I don’t for one moment believe that, and neither should you. The reason neither the United States nor its interests abroad has been attacked is not because Islamic radicals haven’t wanted to attack us. It is because, beginning on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration made it increasingly difficult to do so. The also have made sure that there are fewer and fewer terrorists around to carry out the attacks. For that I believe we all owe President Bush a deep and heartfelt thank you.
“The reason neither the United States has not been attacked is not because Islamic radicals haven’t wanted to attack us.” I agree with you thesis but not with this point. President Bush has ensured that attacking the United States is considerably less profitable than it used to be. Rather than resulting in attention to your struggle, and the world listening to your demands, such conduct often results in your death, along with the death of your state sponsor. You see (BHO) when something costs more, people tend to do it less.
Excellent point, Roger, and further evidence (at least to me) that no good deed goes unpunished.
America responded to the terrorist attacks by going after the terrorists where they sleep and killing as many of them as we possibly could. Instead of rolling over and playing dead, or trying to appease our enemies, we made them into worm-feed. This was not the response that they anticipated. My only regret is that our domestic enemies, namely the left, came to the aid of their foreign allies and prevented us from finishing the job.
It will be interesting to see how much the courage and determination of our enemies increases now that The One is in the white house.
Gratitude, in the short term, is a state of mind as foreign to politics, and to hot political enthusiasms of all colors, as sobriety, or magnanimity. And it is true, too, that history books are written by the winners. So we can expect, not only that ugly and irrational spleen will continue to flow in the direction of George W. Bush, but that the enthusiasts will try to realize it in congressional “investigations,” and perhaps even by direct legal action against the man or his colleagues.
Luckily for us in (most of) the West, domination of historiography by the winners is never absolute. And, since nay-saying is always profitable in the academies of the West, the accounts of the winners are eventually met with accounts that say just the opposite. There are many examples, including the writing of one of Roger’s favorite political analysts, William Allen White. I note that Harry Truman, overwhelmingly an object of scorn or hatred (even within his own party) in the early years of his presidency, after the atom bonmb, and following retirement, has slowly but surely come to be recognized as the man of principle and personal decency he was.
We owe the troops this thank you, Roger, not BushBoy.
Yes, it really seems to be an extraordinary achievement. I remember feeling shortly after 9/11 that another attack was not unlikely. Some people even said that it was inevitable. We really should be grateful to President Bush for successfully protecting us. I wish our new President well, for our sake, as I’m sure many of your readers do. I did not watch Pres Obama’s inauguration speech, but I read that his thanking of President Bush was perfunctory. I join with you and others not in the mad crowd in saying thank you, President Bush.
Seems like every time I turn around, someone is comparing Bush to Truman. I think the better comparison is with Nixon. Both of these men institutionalized leftwing ideas, domestically. Both of them constructively engaged China. Both of them maintained and used a strong military to win an unpopular war.
Byt both of them were abhorred by the pseudo-intelligentsia of the press and academia. The rap on Nixon is his shifty unscrupulousness, demonstrated by Watergate. The rap on Bush is his intransigent stupidity, demonstrated by nothing more than his failure to kowtow to the media. So don’t kid yourself that years from now, Bush will be regarded with the respect he deserves for defending our country. Only those who bother to dig through to the facts will do that.
according to a tidbit i read recently, it was just six weeks after the end of WW2 in Europe that the British electorate gave Winston Churchill the heave-ho from 10 Downing Street.
and, it was not by some narrow margin due to a late-in-the-game accidental misstep. nor was he replaced by someone of extraordinary charisma and historic significance. on the contrary, he lost by a *landslide* to a mousy and long since all-but-forgotten figure named Clement Atlee.
alas, democracy is not notable for gratitude, at least not in the short run.
it is interesting to note, however, then when Gerald Ford died, many to the left of center hailed him for ending “the long nightmare of Watergate” through a pardon that at the time probably cost him the subsequent election.
and, mirabile dictu, Dwight Eisenhower’s praises were being sung last week on NPR — by the current head of the National Endowment of the Arts! it seems that Ike was the first president to use the term “soft power”, and to get behind the idea that America had to compete with Communism in the realm of high culture, as well as militarily and economically.
I agree that Bush was tough on terrorism. But only after his hand was forced by 9/11. I will still not forgive him and or Clinton for not taking preventive action. Especially after the attack on the Cole. And all the info was there for both Clinton and Bush. Its our hope that the congressional hearing this year will get the truth out to the public. They both hoped that Bin laden would confine himself to killing just small groups of Americans. Sounds cold I know. Buts thats politics. But then he went and blew up thousands of Americans. Bush had no choice then but to act. He should not be blamed for it though.
Bushwa!
George W. Bush was one of the very worst presidents the US has ever had. He did incalculable harm to his country and further ruined his political party. The Republican Party (a/k/a the Stupid Party) deserves to go the way of the Whigs. With regard to terrorists, his principle accomplishment was creating more of them by starting an immoral war. Good riddance to bad rubbish! And thanks for giving us at least four years of this pompous Messiah-lite who took office today. Well done, Georgie.
Between this piece of puff and his bit of neo-con and Israeli propaganda on 1/7, Mr. Kimball deserves to never be taken seriously again. I am glad I let my subscription to The New Criterion lapse.
The Whigs became the Democrats, so I’m not sure what it means to suggest that the Republicans should follow their path. I fear G. Clark doesn’t know either. I do not blame GWB for Obama’s elevation, but blame rather an incurious press, a lackluster GOP candidate (for who I have a great but unenthusiastic respect), and our national tendency to oscillate (or perhaps vacillate) between political parties. I expect that in 2-4 years we will have a Republican house and in 8 a Republican senate. And if they can keep from stuffing themselves with taxpayers money the Republicans will hold on to power, if not they will be replace until such time that the public is reminded that the Democrats are even more venial.
I thank you and now private citizen George Bush. Both of you are to be commended for what you have done to restore and in support of the dignity of the Office of President of the United States. Thank You.
If you say the word “Whigs” today, almost no one will have a clue what you are talking about. If a new and actual conservative party were to emerge in this country, undoubtedly many of its members would be former Republicans. Is that ok now?
Mr. Kimball likes to quote from National Review. I find that about the only person there still worth reading is John Derbyshire. He asked on election night where conservatism was in the election. I’d go further and ask where is conservatism in the Republican party? There ain’t much of it.
The ‘08 race had a good conservative in Ron Paul. A man who has been proven right and who would have represented real “change.” But the Republican Party wanted nothing to do with him. And the neo-con hacks at NR and on Fox attacked him. Well, who will they turn to in 2012?
I’d suggest Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina. But I’m not holding my breath on that one.
@10. G. Clark: WOW! That was a closely reasoned bit of input. No lack of personal invective there. Thanks!
I think what I am most grateful to Bush for is his thorough severing of the libertarian philosophy, in either rhetoric or practice, and the Republican party, reversing that disastrous association that began with Reagan. Bush brought a Wilsonian foreign policy, greater than LBJ levels of domestic spending, and and expansion upon Clinton’s police-state and concentration of power in the executive branch, and a general disdain for the Constitution. As a libertarian, I am supremely grateful that my principles will no longer be confused with that of the GOP.
By the way, Roger, I find that not only is sucking up to Magnanimous Papa supremely unmanly, but rather bad form for a conservative pundit, who ought to be a curmudgeonly antidote to liberal courtiers and left-wing true believers. Imagine H.L. Mencken paying such homage to Hoover!