Obama might appear to be wholly different than the outgoing president, but W wasn’t always the divisive figure he became after 9/11. Bush’s transformation should serve as a warning to the new president.
Just before George W. Bush boarded a helicopter on Tuesday and left behind the nation’s capital and the presidency, Barack Obama saw him off with a hug, a handshake and a smile. In stark contrast, moments later, countless Obama supporters who had just watched the inauguration mocked Bush by singing, “Nah nah nah nah, hey hey, goodbye,” as his helicopter circled for one last look at the White House.
That’s sad. Understandable, but still sad.
Was Bush one of the worst presidents in history? Probably. Does he deserve to be treated with dignity and respect even in the face of that reality? Absolutely. Isn’t that the essence of Obama’s audacious message of hope?
The pressure is already on Obama from some corners to abandon his lofty ideals in favor of a more partisan scheme. Obama’s potential is great, but I hope he takes heed of Bush’s failure so he can avoid making the same mistakes.
You see, as the last few weeks unfolded with Bush showing the same level of decency and respect to Obama that Obama showed him, I was reminded that Bush wasn’t always as hard-nosed, combative and overly partisan as the history books will remember.
In fact, one MSNBC commentator on Tuesday accurately portrayed the relationship between the Bushes and Obamas as being full of “lovely dignity and warmth.” Perhaps, in his last days, Bush became more reflective and remembered the leader he once sought to be. Perhaps in these last days we got a glimpse of what could have been. And perhaps the fact that reality was so much different than the potential should serve as a warning to our new president.
Handling controversy with compassion
Bush was a man who, despite the controversy surrounding his 2000 victory, had some potential to unite Americans across party lines. He ran on a platform of compassionate conservatism, which, when it’s genuine instead of a disguise for uncaring policies, reveals the humanity that can exist within conservative philosophy. That compassion was evident in Bush’s handling of the controversy over whether to allow federal funding for stem-cell research in 2001.
In a fairly articulate (Yes, really!) address to the nation on Aug. 9, 2001, Bush announced a compromise that angered some on the right and the left. He would allow federal funding for stem-cell research on the few dozen existing stem-cell lines created from embryos that had already been destroyed. He opted against allowing funding for research that would destroy embryos that could still be used to create babies.
His decision leaned to the right, to be sure, but he didn’t side with the far-right conservatives in his party who argued that even Bush’s small compromise devalued the culture of life. While the base of his political party argued for no federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and many Democrats and some Republicans argued for full funding for such research, Bush found what he believed was a middle ground. He appeared before the nation to sell it in a televised address in which he sought to validate and express respect for the people on the left and right who disagreed with him but, with conviction, explain his decision.
I remember being impressed at the time, and thinking the nation might be headed toward better days.
9/11 brought change
A month later, the terrorists struck. America changed, and so did Bush. He tossed his domestic agenda out the window, gave in to the warmongers in his inner circle and became centrally focused on one mission: ridding the world of the threat of Islamic terrorism through war.
Bush replaced compassion with cockiness. He began to ridicule those who questioned the Iraq war and used the war on terror — and, as a result, the deaths of American soldiers — for political gain. In his unwillingness to compromise or even listen to those who disagreed with his decisions, Bush steered the nation in a direction the majority of people on both sides of the aisle have come to believe was entirely wrong.
How did Bush go from being a president who treated people with dignity and respect, even when he disagreed with them, to becoming one of the more polarizing figures in our nation’s history and someone who did quite a bit of long-lasting damage to the world?
It’s difficult to say with certainty. But I suspect there were a number of factors. The 9/11 attacks were a life-altering event. As president, they must have also exhausted Bush more than the rest of us. And let’s not forget that Bush, at least when the subject was national security, didn’t display the capacity for deep thinking that he did on stem-cell research, so he instead fell back on cowboy politics.
All of that could have created the conditions ripe for what happened: Bush allowed the neo-cons to reshape his thinking and take control of his actions.
The peril of pride
I think another significant factor may be pride. Bush’s cockiness left him unable to see the mistakes he was making even as the vast majority of Americans could see them plain as day.
Which brings me back to Obama. It’s ego that drives me to worry a bit about the new president, a man who doesn’t appear to mind one bit the frequent comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, a man who often invokes the legacy of the president who ended slavery when speaking about his hopes for his own presidency. Where might Obama’s ego take him if the conditions were right (or wrong, such as it may be)?
There’s a big difference between Bush and Obama. The new president is a strong critical thinker. But, like Bush, Obama’s administration includes some highly partisan people. And, like Bush, Obama is governing in the midst of crisis. During the trying times of the Bush presidency, the partisans won out over the more moderate voices like Colin Powell as they stroked the president’s ego with comparisons to Biblical men who accomplished great things for God.
Obama will face extreme pressure from the ideologues in his party, like Bush did, and the fact that his party controls Congress (like Bush’s did during his ideological shift) will increase the temptation to give in to a purely partisan agenda.
But Obama has pledged to put an end to the partisan fray. Throughout the transition of the last few weeks, Bush did a lot to help him accomplish that. The congeniality between the two men and their wives set the stage for the transition, and many Republicans followed Bush’s lead in toning down the garbage.
Let’s hope Obama doesn’t repeat the huge mistakes Bush made during his presidency. The economy, the war on terror and other issues threaten America’s very existence. We can’t afford to have another president’s potential be squandered.