| |
THE SMITH CENTER | for Private Enterprise Studies |
By Rich Stowell
CSUH Student and
Founding Editor of the California Statesman
President George W. Bush has been called the most divisive American leader of this century. Bush's stubborn tenacity in the War On Terror and his moral certitude on almost all matters of public policy have made him the punching bag for the liberal media, academic establishment, and European public.
In an attempt to find hope in history, Bush's critics have compared him to two former presidents: First, to his father and namesake, a one-termer who enjoyed enormous popularity in wartime only to see it erode because of a shaky economy. The second is John Quincy Adams, also a president's son, who ascended to the White House on a disputed election and was defeated handily the next time around. Adams failed reelection because he was more worried about doing what was right than creating politically beneficial alliances.
However coincidental these two analogies may seem, I contend that two other United States Presidents provide more complete and useful comparisons to George W. Bush.
A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt was called a madman and cowboy by many of his detractors, some within his own party. They labeled him stubborn and unilateral. He learned to connect with the common man during his years spent on a cattle ranch. At his core, Roosevelt was a traditionalist and a moralist, and as such he was too conservative for some; but because he saw an expanded federal government as a vehicle to spread his philosophy, he was too liberal for others. Roosevelt was a fierce defender of the free-market. Known as a trust buster, he went after powerful combinations determined to preserve the equilibrium of the market.
Roosevelt was also an aggressive nationalist. He realized that American power could be wielded to reshape the world in a democratic fashion, from Colombia to the Philippines. He built a strong navy and paraded it around the world. He asserted American sovereignty at the risk of alienating Europe. In the end, it was American military might that assured peace and stability in the Philippines and Latin America, and Roosevelt's bold vision and uncompromising style of diplomacy resulted in unprecedented prosperity for millions.
When Theodore Roosevelt was barely two years old, an unassuming, unpolished western lawyer named Abraham Lincoln was elected sixteenth President of the United States. Polished by history, Lincoln was in his day a warmonger who was considered incompetent and too provincial-unfit for the office of Chief Executive.
If ever there was a divisive leader, it was Abraham Lincoln. But history has shown that Lincoln's determined leadership during the Civil War was a morally right, and probably saved the nation from dissolution. He knew that the desire for southern independence was not only unwise, but also immoral and illegal. He loved the American political system and lauded it as "the last best hope on earth." In the face of secession by the Confederate States of America, he realized that only overwhelming military force could end slavery and restore the union. Lincoln was willing to fight for what was not popular, but right.
He did so at the risk of losing the presidency. Lincoln never enjoyed much popularity during his presidency. He won the 1860 election (on a small plurality) only because the Democratic Party had split three ways. In 1864 he defeated his opponent, a Peace Democrat, with only those northern states still in the Union casting votes, only due to a few recent military successes. Throughout the war, he was dogged by low public approval and a press that unendingly second-guessed his war policy. Yet if anyone else was in the White House, it is almost certain that disunion would have prevailed and slavery prolonged.
Like Lincoln, George W. Bush is constantly faced with criticism from the press on his war leadership. Like Lincoln, he understands the moral imperative the United States has to use military strength to defeat an unquestionable evil, and he must persistently convince the public of his position. Bush knows that unity can come only after our enemies are made to submit to us. Like Lincoln, his reelection will succeed or fail on a few tactical operations in the war.
Similar to Roosevelt, Bush sees an opportunity for the United States to use its military might not to establish a global empire, but to export the ideas and culture that has made this nation the freest and most prosperous. Though labeled a renegade and a wild gunslinger, Bush has charted his course and will persevere, á la T.R.
George W. Bush has been placed in the presidency in a unique time in history. While similarities exist among events and people of the past, our world is at a crossroads, and Bush is poised to lead us to a better future.
Bush can handle the hate and derision. Remember, Lincoln and Roosevelt, who were equally scorned, are now revered as two of the greatest leaders the world ever knew. If history is any indication of things to come, Bush's face may one day grace Mt. Rushmore alongside his two great Republican forebears.
People have said the worst about our best. Some things never change.