Don't Just Blame Bush, It's The Philosophy

In spite of the opening of George W. Bush's presidential library and recent attempts by some of his supporters to put a positive spin on his presidency,* George W. Bush will likely go down in history as one of our worst presidents, "perhaps" THE worst. The American public can have a short memory, maybe even shorter in this era of "breaking news" and social media stories that can change the subject faster than Congress can pass legislation ...ah, okay, so that's a terrible comparison. Franklin D. Roosevelt has been widely seen as one of America's greatest presidents for decades, as he tried to combat the most severe economic downturn in the nation's history AND he led the country through all but the last months of World War Two. FDR was hated by the few, but he was revered by a large segment of the American public, which transcended party lines. The haters then were of the same type we have today; the greediest and most ruthless in American society, always looking out only for themselves and their immense egos, and hating anyone who dares to help others, but at least even THEY didn't have the nerve to call themselves "the job creators," as some of today's ruthless and greedy haters have done.

On the other hand, George W. Bush will always face historical criticism for the exact opposite reasons that secured Roosevelt's place in history. Bush chose to fight a war in Iraq that became immensely unpopular. The build-up to that war had the Bush administration indicating that Americans could be in grave peril from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was deemed to have "weapons of mass destruction," generally meaning biological and chemical weapons, and possibly an active nuclear program. The idea was put out that Hussein had been in contact with Al Qaeda and that he could provide them with these weapons. The invasion of Iraq and the fall of Hussein produced no such weapons nor any nuclear program, and when many of the captured Iraqi political and military leaders were interrogated, including Hussein himself, none indicated that such weapons had been available to them. Searches of buildings and the unearthing of possible sites proved fruitless. Bush and his administration then tried to change the focus of the war to the successful removal of Saddam Hussein and the chance to bring democracy to Iraq, but while the public shed no tears for Saddam, it also never really bought his removal, nor any attempts at establishing democracy in Iraq as truly valid reasons for the war. Insurrection by elements of the Iraqi population against foreign occupation and outright civil war between religious factions there had American and coalition troops caught in a horrible situation with mounting casualties. No one knows where Iraq is really heading a decade after Hussein fell. No amount of spin can change these facts, including the highly unlikely event, in my opinion, of Iraq becoming a model democracy in the volatile Middle East.

Throughout his presidency, Bush and his administration touted "free markets" as the solution to just about anything and everything economic. Free trade with low wage countries was pushed, with many thousands of American jobs sent overseas by those super patriotic bastions of greed and ruthlessness of American business, many of whom would sell their own mothers for the right price. If their mother is deceased, they'll sell her remains, casket and all. Regulation of business was downplayed, if not often dismantled. Market speculation in oil drove prices through the roof and helped to cripple the economy, which was then laid waste by unscrupulous bankers with highly complex securities backed by bad mortgages. The Bush administration and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan proved to be wrong about business being able to regulate itself, and the free market philosophy cost millions their jobs and their homes. A new Fed chairman and the prospect of the imminent collapse of the financial system had Bush reverse the free market nonsense to bailout the heavily indebted banks and provide some money to strapped auto companies. The crisis secured the election of Barack Obama who took the reins of the presidency with the economy in virtual free fall.

Democrats love to mention George W. Bush and watch Republicans blush, cringe or try to hide under their seats. Republicans, on the other hand, including the so called "Tea Party," have tried to act as if the world came into being on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama took the oath of office. For a bunch who are always telling others to take personal responsibility, I don't believe I've ever heard them take responsibility for the failures of the philosophy they have touted so much, but which as produced so much misery. To me, what Bush did or didn't do is important, but not as important as the philosophy which led him, most Republicans, and so many misguided Americans down this road to economic destruction.

* Karen Hughes started working for Bush before he was elected governor in Texas and she is a close personal friend of the former president. She was on some of the news programs during the opening of the new library, and while I understand the friendship and loyalty, her recounting of the Bush presidency had to have been told with the fingers of both hands crossed behind her back. It was actually painful to watch and hear her tell how Bush will be so positively evaluated by history on the wars and on his overall administration. She also touted the Medicare drug benefit, a positive accomplishment of Bush's administration, but she failed to note that it wasn't paid for. Like Reagan's philosophy of "We'll cut taxes, especially for the upper incomes, increase military expenditures and give people popular programs, but we'll still balance the budget." As Bush's father said in 1980, that's voodoo economics, and that description certainly applied during his son's time in office. Reagan and George W. Bush both ran huge budget deficits, both such deficits then bequeathed to their respective successors.     

WORD HISTORY:
Rank-This is the noun form. This word appears to go back to Indo European "krengh," which meant "to turn or to bend." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "khrengaz," meaning "that which is curved, bent object." This gave Frankish, a Germanic dialect, "hring" ("ring"), which was then borrowed into Old French as "reng," which then became "ranc." At this time it took on the meaning "row, line," but exactly why this meaning developed is unclear. It came to be used in military terminology, with the notion of "row" coming to mean "in succession of authority;" thus, "rank." It was borrowed by English from French as "rank," apparently in the early 1500s or late 1400s. Close English relative German also borrowed the word as "Rang" ("rank") from the modern French version "rang."