I ask this because of these two different pieces on the subject, here and here.
There is much of what Michael Novak says, that reflects my feelings on George W. Bush:
What I do want to argue is that, after Washington and Lincoln, Bush is the bravest of our presidents. He has faced the most intense fire, hatred, contempt, heavily moneyed and bitterly acidic partisan opposition, underhandedness, betrayal, of any president in the last hundred years. He has faced hostility over a longer time, in possibly the most dangerous period of international warfare in our national history. He has remained constant, firm, decided, and generous (to a fault) with his opponents.
He has faced almost unbroken contempt from the academy, from the mainstream press, from Democratic elites, from Moveon and all the other holders of the Democratic-party purse strings, from the Democratic Congress, from his treacherous (if not treasonous) Central Intelligence Agency, and from many levels of the permanent State Department. Almost every day, he has been pummeled and undermined by powerful forces of American power. Still, he has stayed firm, with clear arguments, and an even clearer vision.
On the number-one issue facing the nation”the war declared upon us by fascists who pretend to be religious”he has not wavered, he has not bent, he has stayed on course and true.
It takes more bravery to continue walking calmly through immense hostility at home, than to face down a foreign foe, with a united nation at one’s back. This, as I say, is a very brave president.
It may also turn out that, despite currently swirling furies, the president’s stout refusal to be merely partisan or to throw red meat to some of his best supporters (he knew as well as anybody what they most wanted now), alongside the five interlinked courses of action he proposed, will have empowered a much more thorough immigration reform than seemed possible even four weeks earlier.
Despite a normal diet of failures and setbacks, common to all presidents, it is also worth counting up his steady, always surprising successes in cutting taxes, in reshaping the Supreme Court, in getting personal Social Security accounts and personal medical accounts on the agenda of public discussion (the first president since Roosevelt to touch the third rail and live to tell of it), and in presiding over the most amazing economy in the world during the past six years.
Polls may be fickle. Notable accomplishments endure, as rock-solid facts. The full record of this president may yet turn out to be as highly ranked as his bravery is bound to be.
If you were in his shoes, would you not prefer the fame of 30 years from now to popularity in your own time? Being popular is neither within one’s own control nor, in the larger scheme, a goal worth pursuing. Doing the right thing steadily, as best one can, is.
I like this guy. And I admire his guts, and his decency.
In spite of my feelings on his immigration stance, I still support him. I disagree with him, but I still like him!
The Anchoress questions whether the POTUS lost his bearings or did we:
That made me wonder a little – has President Bush lost his bearings, or have we? Is it President Bush who has broken faith with “his base” or have they?
When I read my friend’s line, I thought of a line from Pride and Prejudice, in which Elizabeth Bennett says in new appreciation of Mr. Darcy, “In essentials, I believe, he is very much what he ever was.”
Perhaps I am a dim bulb, but President Bush has never surprised me, and that is probably why I have never felt let down or “betrayed” by him. He is, in essentials, precisely who he has ever been. He did not surprise me when he managed, in August of 2001, to find a morally workable solution in the matter of Embryonic Stem Cells. He did not surprise me when, a month later, he stood on a pile of rubble and lifted a broken city from its knees. When my NYFD friends told me of the enormous consolation and strength he brought to his meetings with grieving families, I was not surprised. When the World Series opened in New York City and the President was invited to throw the first pitch, there was no surprise in his throwing (while wearing body armor) a perfect strike.
continue reading here.
Both authors make good points on the fact that George W. Bush has not changed his stance on any point. He says what he means and he accomplishes what he sets out to do. He has lead this country in spite of the forces against him, he has lead this country contrary to what the polls say he should do, and for that, I am eternally grateful!
I saw this article yesterday. I just had to stop, look out the window and reflect. It was also the day after I had an argument with a liberal because they were gathering a petition to censure him. No solution offered on HOW to fight terrorism; just a censure on his methods.
There are many things I disagree with him about but he is rock solid in his commitments, he never wavers or changes his mind and I have come to have a deep respect for him. He is true to his values and honest in his actions. That very thing leaves him vulnerable to criticism especially in the corrupt environment of Washington.
One can only hope that our next president has the strenght of character he has displayed.
Well said Bon Bon!
Going in, it’s impossible to see all sides of an issue when a decision has to be made. Even the best leader will make a bad decision from time to time. That’s the burden of a leader. We shouldn’t give George Bush such a hard time for making bad decisions.
We should, however, be critical of him if he’s not willing to take a second look at decisions that time has shown to be poorly made. George Bush’s resoluteness bothers a good number of people becauase they are smart enough to realize that no one is perfect. They know that he is just deluding himself.
People who are scared and feel threatened dig their heels in. Good leaders, in addition to appearing strong and resolute, also appear thoughtful and do not shy away from differing viewpoints. You could see it in presidents like Reagan and Clinton. Their body language exuded a strong leadership quality and a sort of “tip of the hat” to the other side, “but this is the way we’re going to go on this one”. Later on, they were able to comment on their decisions and acknowledge when they’d made a “not so good” decision on something.
..Chuck..
There’s a pretty big gray area in between rock solid won’t waver and going with the polls and having no core beliefs. Somewhere in there is the leader who says, as Chuck describes, maybe I was wrong, and I wanted it x but it is clear that the people (immigration reform) want y so I am going to do z because that is what is right and what is needed (and it isn’t amnesty).
That leader recognizes reality and articulates to the people why he is changing his position. I can’t believe that either extreme above is a good thing. With the rock of Gilbraltar type, you better hope they are right because if they aren’t you’ll sink right along with them. The finger in the wind types are too subject to manipulations of the media and special interest groups. Like most things in life, somewhere in that gray area but weighted toward the stalwart side seems to be the right combination imo.
Chuck- I would argue that GWB is in a better position to see things more clearly on issues such as the war. In that particular area, I think there is much that we really don’t know. I am referring to GWOT, and Iraq to the lesser extent. On immigration…I know how I feel on it, but I keep reminding myself of the leadup to 2000 election…he was very pro-Mexico etc…but I do also feel he is trying to ride the fence on the issue.
Robert- great points!
I admit that those of us who support strict immigration enforcement should not be at all surprised by GWB’s position. He has been consistent on this all along, since his Texas Gov days, and frankly, this was one of the things that bothered me about him when he first ran for Pres.
I knew in the back of my mind that we’d come to this point someday, and here we are. But I just couldn’t see either of the Democrite candidates, Al “Earth in the Balance” Ecofraud Gore, or John “I voted against it— before I voted for it” Kerry in the White House.
“in possibly the most dangerous period of international warfare in our national history”
Come on; you’ve got to be kidding me.
Do you realize that a foreign power burned the White House? They basically controlled our capital?
President Washington wasn’t far from losing the Revolutionary War.
WW2???
The actions of these terrorists (9-11 and otherwise) are never going to destroy America, but there are a number of events in American history that came close.
7- Zelda the samples you cited, though very good, I feel I need to point out that we knew who the enemy was in each of those situations. That is not the case today. Will the actions of the Terrorists destroy the entire nation? No. Can it cripple us in key areas? You bet.
“There are many things I disagree with him about but he is rock solid in his commitments, he never wavers or changes his mind”
Why is NOT changing ones mind when faced with new facts and information a “good thing”???
I think it’s the exact opposite of “good”. That kind of behavior is stubborn and ignorant to reality.
…And dangerous. (!)
San Fran….I did not state that to imply that changing ones mind was a bad thing. It’s a good thing to change ones mind when the situation warrants it.
My statement focused on his resolve to fight terrorism and in that respect he has not changed his mind. Peejz pointed out in her post that he is in a position to see things more clearly. We as ordinary citizens rely on our elected officials to look at things that we, living in an open society, can’t afford to advertise.
A strong leader is, imo, one who doesn’t let negative opinions sway from making the truly hard decisions when necessary.