A Peaceful Transition of Power
Today President Bush leaves office, and despite the continuing pleas from the left, he will not be led out of the White House in handcuffs. Of course, it hasn't stopped the continued smearing of the guy that we've seen constantly for the last eight years. As a president leaves office, you always want to talk about legacy, but that of course isn't something we can decide right now. Not that it doesn't stop people from trying, and for the 23% Crowd, that means Chris Matthews attacking Bush's farewell address where he talked about spreading democracy and freedom. Matthews chose to blame Bush for the rise of Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Ahmadenijad in Iran, because all were "democratically elected." When those who still support Bush point to the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11, the left goes back to their well-worn "Bush knew" line, blaming Bush for the 9-11 attacks.
And of course, when anyone tries to say that history will be the final judge, liberals immediately claim that history already has, and they trot out a (presumably liberal) university historian to tell you that history already has judged Bush. Except that for history to judge someone, his body of work actually has to BE history! Maybe they're afraid that Bush will pull a Harry Truman, leaving office with low approval ratings but somehow rising to respected status decades later when the full effects of his policies played out. Whatever the case, I guess they'll have plenty of time to go over this for the next four years because they will have nobody currently in power to hate. It really makes me wonder if 6 months from now, the front page of Moveon.org's website will resemble the front page of Newsmax.com in 2001: still devoted to attacking the last president while virtually ignoring the one currently in office. Despite the efforts of Democrats like Susan Estrich who are begging their lunatic fringe to back down now that the Bush presidency is ending, it's doubtful that will happen.
Back in the peak days of Bush Derangement Syndrome, one of my back-burner ideas was an alternate "history" that would have played out if Gore had become president instead of Bush. For the most part, it was tongue-in-cheek; I had things like Cheney's shooting incident turning into an excuse for Gore to ban all guns, but there were also items I truly think would have happened like Gore using 9-11 as a reason to raise taxes. But I trashed the idea after I could no longer defend Bush. Let's face it, by late 2007, it had become tiring to constantly defend the guy from the liberal onslaught, so I just wanted to run out the clock. And then the bailout last year lost a lot of us Republicans for good, both for the orgy of deficit spending itself but also because it shed light on the inherent problem of the Bush economic policy of propping America up by spending beyond your means.
Anyway, it's almost over now, so let us look forward. We have a new president coming into office, one who promises change, and we certainly want things to change in this country, although we differ on what things we want changed. But at a time when we celebrate the uniquely American tradition of transfer of power that doesn't come at the barrel of a gun, there are those who just don't want to celebrate, and for the old, tired reasons.
The now-unlistenable Rush Limbaugh is attacking fellow conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity for the unpardonable sin of wishing Obama success. So now we have to put partisanship ahead of wanting the incoming president to do a good job for the good of the nation? That is just plain unpatriotic. Wanting the president to fail just to support your agenda is WRONG. It was wrong when the 23% Crowd wished ill on Bush, and it is wrong for right-wingers to do this now. And I know the reason... "They did it to us, why can't we do it to them?" Because at some point, you have to break the cycle. Sorry it wasn't the Democrats who broke the cycle upon a Republican taking office, but it has to happen. Hyperpartisanship has got to stop. This is as good a time as any.
At the same time, I'm not going to allow myself to get sucked into any kind of Obama cult of personality where I immediately attack anyone who has a disagreement with him. I didn't vote for him, there are issues on which I oppose him. And I will feel free to criticize the president when I think it's necessary. However, as this country is in bad shape right now, we need our president to do well... I just have different standards than others when it comes to what approximates "doing well."
Obama held a dinner meeting with prominent conservatives like George Will last week; that is certainly a welcome change from Jim Webb telling President Bush to shove off at that dinner for incoming senators two years ago. When you actually make an attempt to understand the other side, maybe consensus can be found. There are things that most Americans agree with; use that to make things happen. Now I know there are those on the far left and far right who abhor that approach and will be angry that their side won't just impose its will on the other side, but if it succeeds, they won't have a leg to stand on.
So I will watch the inauguration and Obama's address and we'll have to wait and see how this all plays out. Imagine that, not passing judgment on someone before he does anything...
And of course, when anyone tries to say that history will be the final judge, liberals immediately claim that history already has, and they trot out a (presumably liberal) university historian to tell you that history already has judged Bush. Except that for history to judge someone, his body of work actually has to BE history! Maybe they're afraid that Bush will pull a Harry Truman, leaving office with low approval ratings but somehow rising to respected status decades later when the full effects of his policies played out. Whatever the case, I guess they'll have plenty of time to go over this for the next four years because they will have nobody currently in power to hate. It really makes me wonder if 6 months from now, the front page of Moveon.org's website will resemble the front page of Newsmax.com in 2001: still devoted to attacking the last president while virtually ignoring the one currently in office. Despite the efforts of Democrats like Susan Estrich who are begging their lunatic fringe to back down now that the Bush presidency is ending, it's doubtful that will happen.
Back in the peak days of Bush Derangement Syndrome, one of my back-burner ideas was an alternate "history" that would have played out if Gore had become president instead of Bush. For the most part, it was tongue-in-cheek; I had things like Cheney's shooting incident turning into an excuse for Gore to ban all guns, but there were also items I truly think would have happened like Gore using 9-11 as a reason to raise taxes. But I trashed the idea after I could no longer defend Bush. Let's face it, by late 2007, it had become tiring to constantly defend the guy from the liberal onslaught, so I just wanted to run out the clock. And then the bailout last year lost a lot of us Republicans for good, both for the orgy of deficit spending itself but also because it shed light on the inherent problem of the Bush economic policy of propping America up by spending beyond your means.
Anyway, it's almost over now, so let us look forward. We have a new president coming into office, one who promises change, and we certainly want things to change in this country, although we differ on what things we want changed. But at a time when we celebrate the uniquely American tradition of transfer of power that doesn't come at the barrel of a gun, there are those who just don't want to celebrate, and for the old, tired reasons.
The now-unlistenable Rush Limbaugh is attacking fellow conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity for the unpardonable sin of wishing Obama success. So now we have to put partisanship ahead of wanting the incoming president to do a good job for the good of the nation? That is just plain unpatriotic. Wanting the president to fail just to support your agenda is WRONG. It was wrong when the 23% Crowd wished ill on Bush, and it is wrong for right-wingers to do this now. And I know the reason... "They did it to us, why can't we do it to them?" Because at some point, you have to break the cycle. Sorry it wasn't the Democrats who broke the cycle upon a Republican taking office, but it has to happen. Hyperpartisanship has got to stop. This is as good a time as any.
At the same time, I'm not going to allow myself to get sucked into any kind of Obama cult of personality where I immediately attack anyone who has a disagreement with him. I didn't vote for him, there are issues on which I oppose him. And I will feel free to criticize the president when I think it's necessary. However, as this country is in bad shape right now, we need our president to do well... I just have different standards than others when it comes to what approximates "doing well."
Obama held a dinner meeting with prominent conservatives like George Will last week; that is certainly a welcome change from Jim Webb telling President Bush to shove off at that dinner for incoming senators two years ago. When you actually make an attempt to understand the other side, maybe consensus can be found. There are things that most Americans agree with; use that to make things happen. Now I know there are those on the far left and far right who abhor that approach and will be angry that their side won't just impose its will on the other side, but if it succeeds, they won't have a leg to stand on.
So I will watch the inauguration and Obama's address and we'll have to wait and see how this all plays out. Imagine that, not passing judgment on someone before he does anything...
posted by Dave | 8:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home