Reflecting on Bush’s Record: Really Meritless?
Published in United Daily News
(Taiwan) on 17 January 2009
by Xu Li-Ling (link to original)
America's President Bush will soon leave office, with most holding him to be the nation's worst president. The image of him leaving office appears especially solitary in contrast to the widespread anticipation of Obama. But in the countdown to his White House exit, evaluations of his achievements have taken a mellow turn. Upon careful consideration of the actions of his last eight years, it seems that perhaps history will shed new light on his presidency.
On the eve of his White House exit, Bush in his last press conference voluntarily admitted to having made mistakes, but still strongly defended his political accomplishments. He even became agitated and asserted that he was proud of solid achievements while in office. Revealing concern over negative criticisms during the last few years, and his hope that history will vindicate him, Bush emphasized that the merit of policies must undergo the test of time and cannot be judged in the short-term.
Bush's words bring to memory President Truman, who in his time also failed people's expectations. Truman's 1952 support rating was a mere 22%, a record low. But recent assessments of historians have taken a dramatic turn. Truman's policies, controversial in his time, are today regarded as acts of courage, which has caused him to become one of America's most popular presidents. According to several polls, Bush's approval rating has long since dropped below 30%, just slightly above Truman's.
Bush's most controversial policies during office included the Iraqi invasion, the sluggish relief response to Hurricane Katrina, and the handling of the American subprime mortgage crisis, which led to the global financial crisis. Among these, the Iraq war and the anti-terrorist actions have damaged America's global image, the handling of Hurricane Katrina was the key factor in plummeting Bush's domestic approval rating, and the subprime mortgage crisis not only dragged America and the global economy into recession, it drained the nation's power.
Moreover, apart from the deeply rooted image of helplessness in the face of Hurricane Katrina, which is difficult to lodge from people's hearts, it is now held that Bush's anti-terrorist actions and economic measures will need to stand the test of time in order to be conclusively judged. As far as the Iraq War is concerned, most people believe this decision to be related to Bush's ideology. But the research of international relations professor Frank Harvey of Canada's Dalhousie University questions if Gore had won the presidential elections eight years ago and faced the same 9/11 terrorist attack, would the Iraq war have been avoided? The conclusion is: not necessarily.
Professor Harvey believes that given the pressure created by anger and fear in post-9/11 America, coupled with the serious international concern towards this event, military action must have been the primary choice. Additionally, Gore's foreign diplomatic stance was clearly hawkish, above and beyond Bush. During his term as Bill Clinton's vice-president, he championed taking the toughest line when dealing with Iraq's Hussein, and supported military action in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Even earlier, Gore supported the 1991 Persian Gulf War and America's troop deployment in Libya and Grenada in the eighties. Thus, the Iraq War was not directed by Bush's ideology, nor can it be simply viewed simply as his war.
Subject to many years of fierce criticism were Bush's deployment of troops without UN approval and numerous human rights abuses in the name of anti-terrorism. However, since 9/11 America has not yet experienced another terrorist attack, which was perhaps deterred by anti-terrorist actions. In the future historians may intepret the success or failure of Bush's policies in a new light. Analysts believe that while the Iraq War caused Bush to be roundly criticized, his future historical position will be tied to Iraq's future. If Iraq is able to take a stable path of free democracy and maintain good relations with America, it will become an important American ally in the Middle East. In the future, upon reflections on the Bush administration's Iraq policies, we may discover that they were America's positive turning point in the Middle East, and then history will have a different assessment of Bush.
In the economic realm, the subprime mortgage crisis, which evolved into the global financial crisis, made the Bush government look very bad, and became the worst spot on his record in his final days before leaving office. But in fact, Bush was continuing the policies of former administrations. It was actually during the era of the Clinton administration that financial regulations were relaxed, so the blame for the financial crisis cannot be placed solely on Bush. Bush also reminded reporters at a press conference that eight years ago America was in a recession and not only did he end the recession, he also created a record fifty-two straight months of increased employment rate.
Many critics blame Bush for bringing America disaster. However, from a global perspective, this takes on a new meaning. The decline of America's national power is certainly lamentable, but it gave the global community more opportunities and spurred several powers to rise. Anti-terrorist actions spurred America to decrease dependence on Middle East oil, and Canada sprang forward to become the America's primary crude oil supplier, which became an important motivator to grow its economy. The Bush government's firm adherence to free market principles and maintenance of good trade relations with China caused China's economy to soar in the last eight years. China accumulated foreign exchange reserves and took the path toward becoming one of the world's leading powers. During Bush's term, new markets, attracting worldwide attention, have risen up in such places as India, Russia, and the Latin American countries, and they have combined to form to form several new multi-national groups, diverting from America the ability to direct world affairs.
Bush has also had some memorable, yet ignored, political achievements, such as the promotion of “No Child Left Behind”, which narrowed students' educational gap, the 600 million dollars spent on global AIDS prevention (which cared for several million African AIDS victims), and the American health care reform which has enabled hundreds of thousands of low-income elderly people to get free or cheap medicine, lighten their burden, etc. It's just that these achievements have all been overshadowed by the war on terror and the global financial crisis. Therefore, in this hour Bush can hardly shake the image of failure and incompetency, he can only hope that future historians will judge this era from a different perspective.
On the eve of his White House exit, Bush in his last press conference voluntarily admitted to having made mistakes, but still strongly defended his political accomplishments. He even became agitated and asserted that he was proud of solid achievements while in office. Revealing concern over negative criticisms during the last few years, and his hope that history will vindicate him, Bush emphasized that the merit of policies must undergo the test of time and cannot be judged in the short-term.
Bush's words bring to memory President Truman, who in his time also failed people's expectations. Truman's 1952 support rating was a mere 22%, a record low. But recent assessments of historians have taken a dramatic turn. Truman's policies, controversial in his time, are today regarded as acts of courage, which has caused him to become one of America's most popular presidents. According to several polls, Bush's approval rating has long since dropped below 30%, just slightly above Truman's.
Bush's most controversial policies during office included the Iraqi invasion, the sluggish relief response to Hurricane Katrina, and the handling of the American subprime mortgage crisis, which led to the global financial crisis. Among these, the Iraq war and the anti-terrorist actions have damaged America's global image, the handling of Hurricane Katrina was the key factor in plummeting Bush's domestic approval rating, and the subprime mortgage crisis not only dragged America and the global economy into recession, it drained the nation's power.
Moreover, apart from the deeply rooted image of helplessness in the face of Hurricane Katrina, which is difficult to lodge from people's hearts, it is now held that Bush's anti-terrorist actions and economic measures will need to stand the test of time in order to be conclusively judged. As far as the Iraq War is concerned, most people believe this decision to be related to Bush's ideology. But the research of international relations professor Frank Harvey of Canada's Dalhousie University questions if Gore had won the presidential elections eight years ago and faced the same 9/11 terrorist attack, would the Iraq war have been avoided? The conclusion is: not necessarily.
Professor Harvey believes that given the pressure created by anger and fear in post-9/11 America, coupled with the serious international concern towards this event, military action must have been the primary choice. Additionally, Gore's foreign diplomatic stance was clearly hawkish, above and beyond Bush. During his term as Bill Clinton's vice-president, he championed taking the toughest line when dealing with Iraq's Hussein, and supported military action in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Even earlier, Gore supported the 1991 Persian Gulf War and America's troop deployment in Libya and Grenada in the eighties. Thus, the Iraq War was not directed by Bush's ideology, nor can it be simply viewed simply as his war.
Subject to many years of fierce criticism were Bush's deployment of troops without UN approval and numerous human rights abuses in the name of anti-terrorism. However, since 9/11 America has not yet experienced another terrorist attack, which was perhaps deterred by anti-terrorist actions. In the future historians may intepret the success or failure of Bush's policies in a new light. Analysts believe that while the Iraq War caused Bush to be roundly criticized, his future historical position will be tied to Iraq's future. If Iraq is able to take a stable path of free democracy and maintain good relations with America, it will become an important American ally in the Middle East. In the future, upon reflections on the Bush administration's Iraq policies, we may discover that they were America's positive turning point in the Middle East, and then history will have a different assessment of Bush.
In the economic realm, the subprime mortgage crisis, which evolved into the global financial crisis, made the Bush government look very bad, and became the worst spot on his record in his final days before leaving office. But in fact, Bush was continuing the policies of former administrations. It was actually during the era of the Clinton administration that financial regulations were relaxed, so the blame for the financial crisis cannot be placed solely on Bush. Bush also reminded reporters at a press conference that eight years ago America was in a recession and not only did he end the recession, he also created a record fifty-two straight months of increased employment rate.
Many critics blame Bush for bringing America disaster. However, from a global perspective, this takes on a new meaning. The decline of America's national power is certainly lamentable, but it gave the global community more opportunities and spurred several powers to rise. Anti-terrorist actions spurred America to decrease dependence on Middle East oil, and Canada sprang forward to become the America's primary crude oil supplier, which became an important motivator to grow its economy. The Bush government's firm adherence to free market principles and maintenance of good trade relations with China caused China's economy to soar in the last eight years. China accumulated foreign exchange reserves and took the path toward becoming one of the world's leading powers. During Bush's term, new markets, attracting worldwide attention, have risen up in such places as India, Russia, and the Latin American countries, and they have combined to form to form several new multi-national groups, diverting from America the ability to direct world affairs.
Bush has also had some memorable, yet ignored, political achievements, such as the promotion of “No Child Left Behind”, which narrowed students' educational gap, the 600 million dollars spent on global AIDS prevention (which cared for several million African AIDS victims), and the American health care reform which has enabled hundreds of thousands of low-income elderly people to get free or cheap medicine, lighten their burden, etc. It's just that these achievements have all been overshadowed by the war on terror and the global financial crisis. Therefore, in this hour Bush can hardly shake the image of failure and incompetency, he can only hope that future historians will judge this era from a different perspective.