Most presidencies are riding on fumes about now. I fully expected that at this time the Bush presidency would be rolling to its finish line in depression. I expected that if Bush ever had any moments of self-honesty, he would have to look back on the last eight years as the most colossal failure of a presidency, perhaps in US history.
Of course the current economic catastrophe has happened on Bush's watch. Although I don't have the knowledge to argue for it or prove it, my hunch is that we would not be where we are today if Gore or McCain had become president back in 2000, and probably not if it had been Kerry in 2004. Of course it is possible that some people wouldn't have experienced the same prosperity they have experienced these last 8 years either. I don't really know.
But one thing seems clear to me. The work Bush is doing right now may very well be the most important and enduring work of his presidency. There is a possible world in which it is what he does now that will define his presidency even more than the Iraq War or 9-11--and it may define his presidency very positively. For all my negative valuation of his time in office, he could actually tip the balance scales for me in the opposite direction.
In this respect, it is great that he is not up for re-election right now. He is able to do whatever he actually thinks is the best thing to do, rather than pander to the easily manipulated populace. His popularity is so low, he has no reputation to save. Everyone is ignoring him these days, even in his own party. They completely ignored him when the first bailout bill came around. They didn't even mention him at his own convention!
I for one am cheering him on. You go, Bush! Save the economic day for us and the world! I'm the forgiving sort.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
There you go again, still putting your faith and trust in politicians. When will you learn?
craig,
withoug proper representation, then we are all 'up the creek" and without a paddle to boot!
good governance takes wisdom and prudence. it should not be determined upon economice policy alone, because what constitues a properous economy is not ultimately prosperous for the nation as a whole..
so, in this light, who else can we trust? we are not one's that have no representation in our government...therefore, we must be diligent in protecting the values that promote good government so that we can continue to live in peace and freedom...
Of course you're right, Craig... but then again, you're not a Quaker either! :-)
Ken, while many would say he should have just focused on his own country, our president has done some amazing humanitarian work on behalf of Africa. That doesn't make great headlines but it does give us the other side of him. He's much more than the war mongering idiot he is painted out to be these days.
This is just one of the many articles about that I referred to in my earlier post:
Boston Globe article on Bush in Africa
I have no issue with the role of government protecting and ordering the lives of a nation. The problem I have is that to many of you tend to view government and politicians as a replacement for God and actually think they will bring about a more perfect world. I used to believe that too. If I recall that was the criticism leveled on the religious right a generation ago. They thought if they could just get their guy in, things would change and America would become a more moral and godly nation.
Christians from the liberal perspective have been doing the same thing for decades, without the criticism, as if it is OK for them to do it. If they can just get their guy in, the world will be a better place. Well, I have found that getting "my guy or lady" in does not make much difference. You all will learn soon enough that no matter who runs things in Washington DC,it will be business as usual.
Craig, you would have liked a line from Shane Claiborne today. He took exception to Obama's comment that "America is the best hope for the world." Claiborne corrected him noting that Jesus was the only hope for the world.
I don't have a person who I think is God's person to save the day in this election (neither does Drury). All my posts have been an attempt to weigh advantages from disadvantages in order to vote for what we hope will be the best possible outcome. I am far from a knee jerk partisan for any side. Labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are hindrances to clear thinking, catalysts for straw man and ad hominem arguments.
I agree with you that there are no demi-gods in this or any election. Nor as you imply does the secular arena relieve the church of one drop of its task toward the world. We agree.
I don't think Professor Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in Economics, would agree.
Nice try Ken. You dance well for a Wesleyan who is not supposed to dance. If you endorse and vote for the most liberal Senator in the Senate and a socialist who wants to "spread the wealth" as he says, (redistribute the wealth) you don't want his label to stain you.
Since you don't like labels and consider them attacks or hinderances to thinking, I guess you are a careful thinker who has concluded that the most left wing liberal senator in America is the kind of change we need. How about Progressive, liberals seem to like that name better.
Keep it coming Ken. I like to see a blog that "endorses" Obama in one post and cheers for Bush in the next. So unlike other partisan ramblings...
Craig, you speek very wisely.
Post a Comment