Just before the 2000 election, a friend asked how I could support George W. Bush for president when he was “just like the guys who picked on you in high school.” She was right–to a point. Like them, he came from an uppercrust eastern establishment family, never having to struggle as an adolescent to fit in, always having opportunities opening up for him thanks, in large part, to his family connections and his Anglo-Saxon pedigree.
I went to a private “college preparatory” school in the Midwest where my classmates, at one time or another, included a scion of the Taft family and one who claimed descent from the Adamses. Among these offspring of the “finest” Cincinnati families, I was an outsider.
Among the “popular preppies,” however, there were a few who did not pick on those of us of a different religious background, those less gifted at athletics or more interested in our studies. Or whose families only recently came into their fortune. Or had no fortune at all.
There was one preppie in particular who was always friendly to me–and everyone else for that matter. I recall once during assembly when one of the popular kids (and his Jewish hanger-on) put a ruler through a belt loop on my best corduroy pants and pulled, detaching the loop. The other guy was looking on, gently urging his friends to lay off while giving me an awkward, but amicable look that said, “They’re just playing around. Don’t take them too seriously.”
It was that look which defined him. When last I saw him at our fifteenth reunion, while he had a few more pounds and a lot less hair, he was exactly as he had ben in high school, asking me about my life and my mother (his Dad and my Mom went to high school together). He was unfailingly polite and seemed genuinely interested in my life and general welfare.
George W. Bush strikes me as this kind of preppie. One reason so many people hate him is that they see him as the classmate who pulled out my belt loop, someone born to a wealthy family who never had to work to achieve his social or financial success and who mocked those beneath him.
Yet, from what we know about the personal life of the president, we find him much more like the guy who asked about my mother than the ones who mocked my study habits and extracurricular interests (drama and Model UN). While he does seem to have a lot of friends with a pedigree similar to his own, he doesn’t limit himself to such individuals.
In Texas, he surrounded himself with a diverse array of non-White Anglo-Saxon Protestant friends, including Hispanics and African-Americans. He remained close to his longtime family friend Charles Francis when the latter came out as gay. As President, he has met regularly with rabbis and other Jewish leaders at the White House. (This post references one of those meetings.)
All evidence suggests George W. Bush is a decent man who means well. Bearing in mind what we know about the president, I can’t help but like the guy. But, just because I like him doesn’t mean I approve of the everything he has done as president.
He fumbled away a winning hand after his 2004 reelection. He didn’t have a comprehensive legislative agenda nor the resolve to stand up to a spendthrift Republican Congress. Nor as situation continued to deteriorate in Iraq did he realize he might need to shift his strategy (before a change in Congress forced his hand). And he never developed an effective strategy to deal with a hostile media.
That may well be because he doesn’t perceive them as hostile, just as aggressive journalists doing their job. I don’t think he hates his adversaries (as they do him). I do think he is acting in what he perceives to be the national interest — and not (as some have said) to benefit his cronies or allies in oil and other industries.
It is entirely fair when people take issue with his policies and/or his governing style, but to impugn his character as so many have done seems more a projection of their own demons onto the President of the United States than legitimate political discourse. They seem to derive their theories of his evil or greed not from actual facts about the man, but from their own prejudices about men of his class.
It seems to me they see him as a certain type of preppie, haughty and self-satisfied, a man who looks down on those who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths, those who had to work, suffer and struggle to find their way in this world.
Born to good fortune George W. Bush certainly was, but he seems more like certain members of his class who strive to treat all people with dignity and grace, good men and women who reject the condescending attitudes of some of their peers. Those qualities may not make for a good president, but they often make for a decent human being.
It’s too bad some of his critics can’t distinguish between the two.
I’ve been against Bush for his whole second term , which I view as the undoing of his first term… however, there is one picture of him that causes my cold conservative bitter heart to melt:
http://tammybruce.com/BUSH_EASTER_EGG_ROLL.jpg
As with Harry Truman, I suspect (and hope) that History will vindicate Bush-43’s Presidency. When I was in high school in the early 70’s, Truman was held in about as much esteem as Carter…before Jimmy went off the rails that-is.
That’s one of the things about many of Bush’s critics on the left and in the press that strikes me as so immature: because they are upset with the way they were treated in high school, they have a grudge against anyone who came from a wealthy or established family who isn’t on the left.
While I could imagine that GWB may have been like that fellow you describe in your class, it’s also possible that he was a jerk in prep school (though I think that is unlikely–he was too socially successful in both college and high school to have been much of a jerk, and I think his parents are both too grounded for him to have been inspired to act like the jerks you describe). But even in the unlikely event that he was, that’s not necessarily the person he remained.
A few months ago, I was at my father’s funeral, and one of the attendees was a neighbor I went to high school with who has since moved into his parents’ old house in the neighborhood. Now this fellow was definitely something of a jerk in high school, but time and experience have changed him (and challenged him), and he’s definitely not any more. Even if GWB was a jerk in his youth, he has changed quite a bit since then, and his critics who use the sort of argument you describe above are just too immature to move past their own youthful prejudices about people from different (in this case, wealthy, establishment) backgrounds.
i’ve always felt that W was despised solely because he was a Republican or he does not do exactly what they want him to do. I’m a liberal, but I think as a society we have become spoiled and easily seduced by any politician who tell us what we want to hear (Clinton and Mr O come to mind).
Conservatives aren’t off the hook, as I see more responses on how he is *not* such a hard righty and willing to look to the other side for answers. His supporting Pell Grants instead of loans, support for government student loans to take over for banks who gave up, NCLB (which he worked on with Ted Kennedy – why isnt *he* getting some flack?) as well as Medicare Part D I find incredibly moderate for a supposed religious righty
Rachel: It’s refreshing to see a liberal recognize that W isn’t the archconservative that so many characiture him to be.
I remember very clearly during his first term, many many conservatives were bothered by W’s straying from conservative princples (and in those policies that you listed, including: increasing Federal spending, NCLB, the Prescription Drugs thing, signing McCain-Feingold)
But the one thing that we said to each other was.. well at least he’s fighting the Islamic terrorists. Our rationale was all his domestic mistakes could be fixed.. we can’t fix anything if we’re dead.
However we didn’t take into account that the Adminstration would basically surrender public opinion about the war to the Media and Democrats. That he would advocate for open borders. That he would nominate Harriet Myers for Supreme Court. That he would allow renegades in the State Dept and the CIA undermine his foreign policy. That Iraq would spiral out of control. That there was no objective to take on Saudi Arabia or Iran.
It probably would have been best if he was a one term president .. and of course Kerry wasn’t his opposition.
Speaking of the president and his friends. His freshman roommate at Yale was a nice Jewish boy from Los Angeles. They have remained friends all these years. The Nice Jewish boy became a successful lawyer, an observant Jew with 5 children. And yes he is still the liberal he always has been.
I have heard the personal stories from him about how genuine and kind the president is, and how bright he is. But who wants to hear personal stories, when the ‘image’ of the demon is so much more compelling.
People are amazed that to this day I still like Bush, I must have changed my mind by now. I haven’t, I still find him to be a good honorable man. He corrected his mistakes on Iraq, yes he has made other mistakes. Haven’t we all, but I have yet to find any reason to hate him.
Good on you GPW!
“I like Bush” is a very unpopular, and rarely heard sentiment these days; takes some courage to stand up and say it. So good on you. I love president Bush and admire him greatly. The Anchoress had an excellent post a while back about much of the great good President Bush has done and about the man’s exceptional character. I wrote at the time, that there are a great many conservatives who should be shamed by her reminder of what a great man with the courage of his convictions looks like.
Ted B,
I’m with you 110%! Popular opinion is almost meaningless in judging a presidency. Truman was almost exactly as unpopular as Bush, and is now widely regarded as near-great.
Also, Abraham Lincoln was uniformly loathed by the south, but what most Americans probably don’t know is that at times he was almost equally reviled by the north. There were no Gallup polls at the time, but Lincoln was easily our most unpopular president ever. I seem to recall his face on Mt Rushmore. Ronald Reagan’s popularity dipped into the 30’s and he was reviled by most of Europe. Another near-great. There was even a growing movement to impeach another famous G.W. — George Washington.
On the flip side, some of our presidents who have enjoyed high approval ratings have turned out to be among the worst and most corrupt. Harding and Clinton come to mind.
Bush has been a bold and visionary president. I really believe he will be judged another near-great by history. Certainly better than both Clinton and his father. It’s just sad that popular opinion has to be so ignorant.
I think Fred Barnes’ Rebel In Chief is a good examination and explanation of President Bush. A lot of stuff makes more sense.
Especially the reasoning behind the Meirs kerfuffle.
This video of Bush at his last White House Correspondents’ Dinner is really funny.
(real media)
rtsp://video.c-span.org/60days/wh042608_dinner_bush.rm
My feelings toward George W. Bush have really changed through his two terms in the presidency. I really liked him in 2000 and for some time afterward. But by 2004 I had cooled on him and would not have voted for him again had someone like Joe Lieberman won the Democratic nomination.
As his presidency nears an end, I find myself not liking him. But that doesn’t mean I dislike him. And I certainly don’t hate him.
I’ve never found any joy in watching President Bush take it on the chin in Congress, even if I’ve opposed what he wanted. And I’ve never wanted him destroyed because the country would suffer, especially abroad, to have a lame and ineffective chief executive.
I know a lot of Republicans, and run into many more who I don’t know, who also have conflicted opinions about the President.
I won’t live long enough to see it, but it will be interesting when enough time has passed to see how a future generation of historians measures the man and judges his presidency.
(As much as I dislike James Earl Carter, I don’t hate him either. As a committed Christian there isn’t room in my heart for hatred.)
Trace: your opinion on Bush seems to match mine.
The number 1 problem that he has was his adminstrations total abondement of public leadership and the unwillingness to stand up to the lies of the Democrats.
My dislike of what has become of his terms in office is softened by the realization that as bad as he is, considering who the alternatives were, he is the best we got.
I just find it odd that the man was praised for his ability to work with the democrats in Texas, he was able to work with his state Congress and get things done.
Whatever ability he had in TX seems to have disappeared this second term, they just don’t seem to be able to work together. I can’t lay on all the blame on him, democrats don’t feel a need to work with him in his lame duck/unpopular status…and there is a lot of intense “anger” from the base.
#14
He lost it long before his second term. I think it stems from the fact that he didn’t allow democrats to change our Florida voting laws so Gore could win. It was all downhill after that.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 04/28/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
It is sad but no less true that many electoral decisions are made on such grounds as HS trauma. This cuts them all of course, Hillary, I’m lookin’ at you. I too have been a sometimes dissappointed Bushie but the cure for that is always to look at the alternative, not even the opposition. Is there any other figure, left or right, who would have not abandoned Iraq by now? Other than McCain I can’t really think of one, unless HillBama are less than candid in their press.
I am a secular person and not given to celebrititis but I do feel personally connected to the man as to no other public figure. If I knew who to pray to, I would pray for him. In time, I hope and believe, Americans will see that we have been fortunate to have him, on balance, during these strange times. For what it’s worth….
What a stupid claim (on your friends’s part). How could she possibly know he was “just like the guys who picked on you in high school”? Had she met him? Was she there? Is there reliably testimony of GWB picking on gays or anybody in high school? Or, as seems more likely, wasn’t your friend just making sh*t up? based on her own demented stereotypes?
On policy matters, yes, I critique GWB regularly, as he has proven a disappointment repeatedly there. But,
“All evidence suggests George W. Bush is a decent man who means well”?
I voted for GWB twice for President. Given the same circumstances, even with 20-20 hindsight over the years since 2004 (and mis-steps previously), I’d do so again. However, I feel more than justified in criticizing his character on two serious issues:
1. He looked the American people in the eye and flat-out lied about his amnesty bill–and make no mistake, it was definitely his. There was no excuse, and absent any genuine apology, will be no forgiveness for that blatant lie. Coupled with his complete disregard for border security, he has dealt his own credibility a mortal blow.
2. He also lied about pursuing terrorists and their state sponsors wherever they may be, as is evidenced by his hand-holding with the Saudis, whose own sponsorship of jihad is blatant, despite their disingenuous protests otherwise. Put his 2001 pledge down to political blather if you will, but he has repeated it in various forms since, intending us to take him seriously.
He has yet to make good on that pledge as regards the two greatest sponsors of global jihad/terrorism: Saudi Arabia and Syria. Not even a stab at it.
Well-intentioned? If so, he must be as stupid as his longtime detractors have asserted (and assertion I do not believe), for these two things cannot be the result of good intentions toward the American people he was elected to serve. And I doubt the core decency of anyone who shows no shame in lying to me as he did with his false claim that his amnesty bill was not an amnesty bill.
And yet.. in each of the two elections where I voted for him, he was the better man for the job (by at least an order of magnitude) than his opponents. Now that’s a sad, sad thing.
I think Bush was a damn fool for promoting that bill knowing full well he had no domestic support for it.
I opposed that bill.. it was garbage.
Having said that.. I’m not clear as to what Bush’s lie was… can you tell me what it was?
I wouldn’t call that a lie. I would call it failure to live up to policy. One of the main reasons why I supported the Iraq war was becauese I thought it was a stepping stone to taking care of Saudi and Iran..but that was not to be.
And when you consider the Democrats decided to go to war against the war that effectively ended any futher hardcore US action.. so the crippling of that aspect of US policy has plenty of blame to go around… the Democrats, the traitors at CIA, the traitors at State, the Media… the weaklings like C. Rice.
I dont see Bush as being a liar.
It’s hard to come to an honest discussion about GWB’s shortcomings. When brought forth, someone comes along and destroys a civil discussion with rants and raves.
However, I love the guy that even after seven years, when introduced, the cheers make him blush.
This isn’t about him!
I know he genuinely cares about this country.
cassandra , my favorite is when I’ll say something like .. “The goal of the Sunni radical groups is the eventual restoration of the Islamic Khalifah as a prelude to a global jihad to be waged by all Muslims”
And someone will be like “Oh are these the same Muslism that Reagan armed in the 1980s!!!!!! lol. ROTFL!!!!!!!! idiot!!!!!!!”
I recall reading of GWB at Yale,when,acording to Lanny Davis ,some fellow Yalies were saying”queer’ sotto voicce to a gay male.Bush became very angry and tlod them he never wanted to hear that kind of trash again or he’d not associate with them.And I don’t thinki it’s just his background.I don’t know if you’ve ver read any John O Hara,but there’s a line in” Elizabeth Appleton” where a coolege president can’t explain to his wife why he dislikes a lit Professor so much.She ex[plains ,”Just look for anything about him yo don’t like.Pretty soon you’ll have reasons to dislike him and you’ll feel better about it”
How refreshing to find people who are not speaking in hatred and hyperbole. I feel like I am the only person around who does not hate George W. Thanks for you articulate and honest appraisal. Wish it could hit a broader audience. I’ll definitely link this to some friends of mine. Thanks again.
What a refreshing website!!!!! Intellectuals secure in themselves who do not wear their personal life preferences as a beacon for hatred and intolerance. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading this blog and the comments and feel so much more hopeful for my country now! God Bless You all!!!
I also am finding this blog refreshing.. The hatred means nothing to me when a democrat will say the same thing Bush does and it’s considered genuine, unique, brillant, Obama-ish, Oprah-ish, Kennedy-ish, etc…
WTF!!! Does the “other side” (even people from foreign countries) think their human-ness or needs or opinions are THAT original and “right-er” than mine or ANYONES?
It’s almost embarressing how similar we all are .. We’re just marketed differently. But one thing I know for sure… I FELT SAFER WITH BUSH than Clinton. Oh, yeah, Clinton, the one who was in office when the first attempt to KILL us at the World Trade Center – Clinton did nothing. Yet.. we hear NOTHING about that. For that.. I’ll vote Republican forever.
Can you blame me? I mean you heard NOTHING about that from the Democrats. The mere fact that it was NEVER said BY the Democrats was enough for me to vote Republican.
Thank you for this blog. It really is a breath of fresh air.
People HATE George W. Bush. A lot. Why? Because he’s a hideous little shit who fucked everything up, that’s why.
And actually, Jean Z. The people who detonated explosives in the World Trade Center in 1993 were prosecuted and are in jail. This was after Clinton TRIPLED the budgets of the agencies investigating.
Learn your history, you stupid shit, before you go spouting meaningless, incorrect crap.
from wikipedia:
The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef’s uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. And in November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.
The response of the trolls validates my theory that some people are just born to hate. They gravitate to the left because hate is acceptable there.
I agree with V the K. Mr. DNA, what crawled up your butt and died. Seriously, it seems like all the left-wingers are haters and cynics. I wonder what they’ll find to complain about now that Obama’s in the White House. Don’t imagine it will be too long before they’re complaining about him too. And they call Bush a war-monger; the democrats have effectively put the American people at ends against themselves. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” This national “war” they’ve been waging is far more threatening to Americans than any international one. Hopefully the conservatives can be more mature then their liberals comrades and we can all stand united for the first time in a long time in this coming term. God knows, He truly does, that that is what our country needs right now. I truly think that is what Bush wanted, even though he may have come up short, for reasons that he, his administration, and the democrats are all at fault.