George W. Bush a big-league president
JOHN BURKE JOVICH
Sunday, March 16, 2003
With the prospect of war apparently in its 11th hour, the confidence of Americans in their president is as pivotal as ever before in our nation’s history.
The true mettle of several of our greatest U.S. presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, was tested by war. Each of those men possessed the leadership skills necessary to conquer issues as diverse as their personalities.
Abraham Lincoln was resolute in his objective to collectively recognize human equality and save the Union. Woodrow Wilson exhibited a preoccupied stubbornness in his attempt to establish a League of Nations immediately following the armistice that ended World War I. And no wheelchair would stop FDR from attaining the goal of defeating his own axis of evil, then being Germany, Japan and Italy, the surrenders of all he nearly lived to see.
Not all our presidents, however, were so authoritative. Our nation had the misfortune of three such men who served consecutively — Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Each of these presidents believed that a war between the states could be averted through the art of compromise. But their well-intended attempts at simultaneously appeasing both the North and the South went awry.
Fillmore’s Compromise of 1850 was a temporary Band-Aid; Pierce’s Kansas-Nebraska Act resulted in bloody encounters; and Buchanan’s support of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that slavery was a constitutional privilege was the straw that helped break the nation’s back. Thanks to the combined indecisiveness of Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan, the sparks of contention between the abolitionists and slave-owners became full-blown blast furnaces.
When the chips are down, we Americans expect our presidents to be assertive, consistent, proactive.
George W. Bush is a man with a mission: Saddam Hussein must disarm; and a change in regime must occur in Iraq. Bush has surrounded himself with the finest minds available in the fields of both global and homeland security: Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge. And Bush has befriended and is working alongside British Prime Minister Tony Blair, much in the tradition of Roosevelt and Churchill.
Our nation admires a leader who is patient, but resolute; a leader who says what he means and means what he says. To claim that President Bush hasn’t tried hard enough to solicit the partnership of the United Nations in addressing Iraq is tantamount to saying Madonna is embarrassed because her slip is showing.
Forbearance is a virtue. It has stood as a hallmark for presidents on issues large and small. It was Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s endurance with a Democrat-controlled Congress that made possible the greatest interstate road system of any country in the world; it was Lyndon Johnson’s perseverance that brought meaningful civil rights legislation to fruition; and it was Ronald Reagan’s insistence that brought an end to the Cold War.
No reasonable American wants war. War is dirty business. But if, as patriots, it becomes necessary to defend our nation against those despots who would deprive us of our freedoms, against those who have perpetrated the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001, against those who would eliminate our traditions of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” then united we must stand behind President Bush.
Shortly after the conclusion of the president’s March 6 primetime news conference, a talking head on one of the cable news programs alleged that Bush continually brought up his presidential oath as an excuse for the ultimate decision he may soon have to make with respect to war with Iraq.
The accusation is rubbish. President Bush was wise to remind his fellow Americans of the final words of the presidential oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It was his way of highlighting one of the vital duties he swore to uphold — to guard our nation against tyrants like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. For any president to turn his head and do nothing would border on treason.
In retrospect, we Americans have a peculiar way of judging the performance of our presidents. Rarely do we acknowledge presidential greatness during a period of incumbency. It often takes historians as long as 20 years before accurate assessments of a president’s administration can be rendered.
And yet there seems something special about our current president, a gut feeling which assures this writer that, if war with Iraq is inevitable, this nation will sleep better at night knowing George W. Bush is the commander-in-chief.
[John Burke Jovich, a historian of the American presidency]
http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/7230/
- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth
JOHN BURKE JOVICH
Sunday, March 16, 2003
With the prospect of war apparently in its 11th hour, the confidence of Americans in their president is as pivotal as ever before in our nation’s history.
The true mettle of several of our greatest U.S. presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, was tested by war. Each of those men possessed the leadership skills necessary to conquer issues as diverse as their personalities.
Abraham Lincoln was resolute in his objective to collectively recognize human equality and save the Union. Woodrow Wilson exhibited a preoccupied stubbornness in his attempt to establish a League of Nations immediately following the armistice that ended World War I. And no wheelchair would stop FDR from attaining the goal of defeating his own axis of evil, then being Germany, Japan and Italy, the surrenders of all he nearly lived to see.
Not all our presidents, however, were so authoritative. Our nation had the misfortune of three such men who served consecutively — Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Each of these presidents believed that a war between the states could be averted through the art of compromise. But their well-intended attempts at simultaneously appeasing both the North and the South went awry.
Fillmore’s Compromise of 1850 was a temporary Band-Aid; Pierce’s Kansas-Nebraska Act resulted in bloody encounters; and Buchanan’s support of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that slavery was a constitutional privilege was the straw that helped break the nation’s back. Thanks to the combined indecisiveness of Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan, the sparks of contention between the abolitionists and slave-owners became full-blown blast furnaces.
When the chips are down, we Americans expect our presidents to be assertive, consistent, proactive.
George W. Bush is a man with a mission: Saddam Hussein must disarm; and a change in regime must occur in Iraq. Bush has surrounded himself with the finest minds available in the fields of both global and homeland security: Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge. And Bush has befriended and is working alongside British Prime Minister Tony Blair, much in the tradition of Roosevelt and Churchill.
Our nation admires a leader who is patient, but resolute; a leader who says what he means and means what he says. To claim that President Bush hasn’t tried hard enough to solicit the partnership of the United Nations in addressing Iraq is tantamount to saying Madonna is embarrassed because her slip is showing.
Forbearance is a virtue. It has stood as a hallmark for presidents on issues large and small. It was Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s endurance with a Democrat-controlled Congress that made possible the greatest interstate road system of any country in the world; it was Lyndon Johnson’s perseverance that brought meaningful civil rights legislation to fruition; and it was Ronald Reagan’s insistence that brought an end to the Cold War.
No reasonable American wants war. War is dirty business. But if, as patriots, it becomes necessary to defend our nation against those despots who would deprive us of our freedoms, against those who have perpetrated the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001, against those who would eliminate our traditions of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” then united we must stand behind President Bush.
Shortly after the conclusion of the president’s March 6 primetime news conference, a talking head on one of the cable news programs alleged that Bush continually brought up his presidential oath as an excuse for the ultimate decision he may soon have to make with respect to war with Iraq.
The accusation is rubbish. President Bush was wise to remind his fellow Americans of the final words of the presidential oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It was his way of highlighting one of the vital duties he swore to uphold — to guard our nation against tyrants like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. For any president to turn his head and do nothing would border on treason.
In retrospect, we Americans have a peculiar way of judging the performance of our presidents. Rarely do we acknowledge presidential greatness during a period of incumbency. It often takes historians as long as 20 years before accurate assessments of a president’s administration can be rendered.
And yet there seems something special about our current president, a gut feeling which assures this writer that, if war with Iraq is inevitable, this nation will sleep better at night knowing George W. Bush is the commander-in-chief.
[John Burke Jovich, a historian of the American presidency]
http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/7230/
- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth
