This post doesn’t really have a specific point in mind, but I can’t help but marvel at the jaw-dropping hero worship some on the right fall into when it comes to [tag]Bush[/tag]. John [tag]Hinderaker[/tag], for example, was able to have a small, private audience with the [tag]president[/tag] yesterday, and said Bush’s performance “may have been the best I’ve ever seen any politician.”
The conventional wisdom is that Bush is not a very good speaker. But up close, he is a great communicator, in a way that, in my opinion, Ronald Reagan was not. He was by turns instructive, persuasive, and funny. His persona is very much that of the big brother. Above all, he was impassioned. I have never seen a politician speak so evidently from the heart, about big issues — freedom, most of all.
I’ve sometimes worried about how President Bush can withstand the Washington snake pit and deal with a daily barrage of hate from the ignorant left that, in my opinion, dwarfs in both volume and injustice the abuse directed against any prior President. (No one accused Lincoln of planning the attack on Fort Sumter.) Not to worry. He is, of course, miles above his mean-spirited liberal critics. More than that, he clearly derives real joy from the opportunity to serve as President and to participate in the great pageant of American history.
My friend A.L. pointed to a similar perspective a couple of days ago from the National Review’s [tag]Mario Loyola[/tag]. Under a headline that read, “Remembering why we prayed for a Bush victory,” Loyola wrote:
Bush has virtually never in his political career made a decision that he didn’t think was the right thing to do and the right way to do it…. [I]t was not so long ago that Americans could only wish for a president who was obviously trustworthy, upstanding, and principled. And the day is not far off when we will think ourselves lucky to have seen this President defend the honor and integrity of his office — and the American people — for eight years. The times are difficult, and nobody could have gotten through the last five years without making mistakes. But in that station to which God called him, George W. Bush has been himself honestly, and thank [tag]God[/tag] for that.
Wow.
Now, I consider myself a great admirer of former President Bill [tag]Clinton[/tag]. I shook his hand once, and it was a tremendous honor. But it never occurred to me to consider such fawning, sycophantic support for the man, not because he wasn’t a great president, but because such blind, submissive support for any individual has always seemed kind of pathetic for an adult.
I was recently chatting with a friend about Bush’s [tag]presidency[/tag], and I commented that the one good thing about 2009 and beyond, besides a change in leadership, is that it’s highly unlikely that there will be an organized national campaign to convince Americans that Bush really was great, the way the “[tag]Reagan[/tag] [tag]Legacy[/tag] Project” did (and does). No one will be naming airports, bridges, highways, and schools after this guy, and no one will seriously suggest putting his face on U.S. currency. Bush’s presidency will be consequential, but in no way that deserves lasting honors.
Or so I argued. After reading Hinderaker and Loyola, I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps a “Bush Legacy Project” is inevitable. Misguided, of course, but unavoidable.