At the end of George W. Bush’s presidency the United States was left in a state of turmoil: in an economic crisis and in the midst of two wars in the Middle East which are not supported by the majority of Americans. Former President Bush has been harshly criticized by bestselling books by Bob Woodward, by the media, by both America and other nations worldwide. He is judged on the grounds of his failures as well his disliked personality and character which is portrayed by the media. George Bush arguably had many failures in his two consecutive terms in office, like for instance not signing the Kyoto protocol, his views on torture, and his weakened relations with Russia. However, this essay will concentrate on the most talked about and arguable most important issues such as the controversial entry into the Iraq war as well as other foreign policy mishaps and failures in the domestic front. It will become apparent in this paper that the failures of George W. Bush in his two terms outweigh the successes, however, it is not to say that there were no successes for there were various domestic successes in his time including the tax cuts and the No Child Left Behind act. The first part of this essay will discuss what I have found to be the greatest failures of Bush, and the second part of this paper will thereafter assess what I think were Bush´s greatest achievements. What this essay will attempt to conclude is how former President Bush will be judged in the future- will he always be judged as the President who brought America into two unpopular and arguably illegitimate wars in the Middle East? Will it depend on whether one is ideologically more towards the left or right side of the political spectrum? One of the greatest failures of George W. Bush was entering into a controversial war with Iraq and Afghanistan. 9/11 refers to a day marked by fear, confusion, vulnerability, and death in America. On September the 11th, 2001 planes were high-jacked and then crashed on to the world trade center, and a plane was also crashed strategically onto the Pentagon later on the same day. This was the day which changed American foreign policy and which led to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. At first the war in Iraq received high public support, and according to Amy Gershkoff this was “because the Bush Administration successfully framed the conflict as an extension of the war on terror, which was a response to the September 11, 2001”[1] attacks. However, today the polls show a big difference in opinion- around 67% in 2007 said it was not going well and 57%[2] said they should withdraw troops, and today, public opinion shows that there is more opposition towards the war. There are many reasons for this change of opinion from the start of the war until the present day. Firstly, the war can be classified as illegal or illegitimate in the sense that the US did not achieve a mandate from the UN to enter the war. Because of this Kofi Annan said in an interview: “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Other reasons which led to the low manifestation of support for the war are linked to not finding either any weapons of mass destruction, and or not finding any links to Al Qaeda or the attacks in 2001. To a great extent the fact that 4, 287 have died in Iraq and that 30, 182[3] have been wounded in a war which can be described a pointless, means that only a small percent of the nation still supports the war. Lastly, the war has been extremely costly crossing the $300 trillion mark- many Americans aren’t happy that their tax dollars are feeding the war that they don’t believe in. because of all said above, it will be hard to believe that many Americans are in favor of Bush on this account. Bush will probably be judged negatively for a long time because of placing America in the midst of an unnecessary war with no casus belli.
One of the greatest domestic failures of former president George W. Bush was the way in which he tackled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Bush’s attempts at handling the catastrophe have been described as the most embarrassing political disaster by Jack Cafferty and described as an act of carelessness of Bush’s part by the New York Times. The Hurricane hit the United States late August 2005 and “devastated the Gulf Coats of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi and triggered the failures of levees surrounding New Orleans”[4]. This disaster has claimed almost 2000 deaths and has displaced more than a half a million people. [5]Former president Bush was blamed for being slow, incompetent and careless. Indeed, federal troops were only sent in days after the disaster, and they were extremely slow in that it took troops between 2 and 5 days to get there, because roads and highways were flooded[6]. People were hence starving, and thirsty on their roofs and in the superdome for days, waiting for some type of response. Broadcasters and news reporters got in on the first day and for days of filming the disaster they were wondering why no troops were coming in to remove the population and to bring any sort of aid, and the disaster and Bush’s failures were visible to the entire world. The Bush administration was heavily criticized for the way in which it dealt with this disaster, and this was mirrored in the decrease of public support for Bush from 60% to 49% in the time span of two weeks[7]. The Union Leader, which is known to be arguably the most conservative newspaper in the United States wrote: “a better leader would have flown straight to the disaster zone and announced immediate mobilization of every available resource… the cool, confident, intuitive leadership Bush exhibited in his first term, particularly in the months immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, has vanished”[8]. Because of this, President Bush’s Image was wrecked to most Americans, and to many people worldwide, who saw him more interested in the Iraq war than helping Americans in a grave Disaster.
George Bush was at a disadvantage at the beginning of his first term as President: this was because Bush was the “the first candidate since 1888 to be elected with fewer popular votes than his principal opponent”[9]. Because of this, many thought his win of the election was illegitimate, especially the democrats. After such a controversial election, the first thing Bush needed to do was increase his legitimacy and gain some credibility. He was urged by many “to act as if he were indeed paralyzed, proposing only policies that enjoyed bipartisan support”[10], however, boldly, Bush decided to go un-intimidated and went forth with his some of his initiatives. The Bush administration decided on a $1.35 trillion tax cuts, which he then signed a bill on in June the 7th 2001[11]. This tax cut was one of his many top priorities, and he decided to do it soon after elections with a hope that it would be a policy “that both unified and energized Republicans”[12]. He also thought that “although most congressional Democrats would oppose cuts, a majority of the public, including Independents and even some Democrats, would support or at least tolerate them.”[13] Bush and his advisors were expecting the tax cuts policy to show the competence of the Bush administration since it was early on in his first term. This was a successful move in the sense that he took a bold move and initiated a huge important bill when he had little public support nor a majority or a plurality of seats in both houses of congress. This move was also successful because it meant that Bush established himself as a powerful decision making president instead of acting in “paralysis” as advised. This was also important because usually congress “is unlikely to defer to the president for long” and will in turn set their own policy agendas, hence acting with power so early on meant George Bush would have a significant place in agenda setting, and policy initiation. Most importantly it showed Bush keeping his campaign promises and increasing his credibility. However, the tax cuts were unsuccessful in that it did not move the public: the public didn’t seem heavily impressed with the Bill. Indeed only 53% in February 2001 were in favor of the tax cut- even with his great campaign and travels around 29 states to promote the tax cuts had a minimal change. Also, he only managed to persuade one democratic senate (Zell Miller) to support him on tax cuts.
Just as tax cuts increased the credibility of George W. Bush to some Americans, so did the No Child Left Behind act which aimed to increase the education standards in America. Increasing the education standards was one of the main issues that Bush campaigned about in his presidential race[14]. Hence, he was applauded by many for tackling this issue relatively early on in his first term, and so soon after the tax cuts: indeed, it was passed by the senate by June the 14th 2001, and it was made into law by January 2002. The No child Left Behind act was in brief based on the belief that in setting high standards students would be more motivated and hence would achieve higher grades. The act entails schools to be accountable for testing and the achievements and consequently can receive federal funding. However, if the standards of examination were to decrease, funding could be stopped[15]. The act saw an increase of funding education from $42.2billion to $55.7 billion from 2001 to 2004, and from $6.3billion to $10.1billion for children with disabilities[16]. Moreover, there were great improvements seen in the level of education. Indeed, nine and thirteen year olds showed a noticeable increase in reading and math, and more importantly the achievement gaps between whites, Hispanics and blacks has never been lower[17]. This definitely suggests that Bush indeed is a Uniter rather than a Divider, as promised in his campaign. In fact this act was “widely hailed as a bipartisan Breakthrough- a victory for American Children, particularly those traditionally underserved by public schools”[18]. Even though the act seems to be a success, only young age groups seemed affected by the act, which means people were still graduating with the same grades, and not entering the working world with better chances of succeeding. There have been many complaints and controversies about the system which “assumes that what schools need is more carrots and sticks rather than fundamental changes”[19]. Because of this, it is hard to imagine that the future will judge this as an outstanding achievement of George W. Bush, because the bill didn’t reach its expected targets.
The third and last achievement that this paper will discuss is the two appointments to the Supreme Court. During his presidency, George W. Bush saw the chance to nominate two people to the Supreme Court because of the retirement of Sandra day O´Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist. With the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush nominated John Roberts, who was originally meant take the place of Sarah O’connor when she would retire. His choice of John Roberts was applauded by many, since he "has devoted his entire professional life to the cause of justice and is widely admired for his intellect, his sound judgment and personal decency." Also, more importantly, he was seen as a close to perfect candidate to maintain the ideological balance, since both Chief of Justice Rehnquist and John Roberts were “ideologically conservative”[20]. The second appointment wasn’t as popular as the one of John Roberts. As Sandra Day O’Connor retired, Bush wanted to replace the moderate O’Connor with a conservative Samuel Alito. As expected, this move was not welcomed by democrats, because it was an obvious move towards the conservatives advantage. So democratically speaking the second appointment was not a democratic success which favored democrats, however, it was a success for republicans, whose views would be more represented in the Supreme Court. This was extremely important for Bush because “Senator James Jeffords of Vermont left the republican party, shifting the majority in the senate to the democrats”[21]. It was also important because republicans were at a disadvantage when they “lost seats in both houses of congress” when Bush first came into power. Lastly, moving the Supreme Court towards the right was a positive move for Bush because he was able to justify more of political moves with justice. With the appointments, the republican voice can live on in the realm of Justice.
There are various studies which were conducted on Bush’s approval rates, and one by Richard Eichenberg and Richard Stoll strongly suggests that at least for the next generations Bush has been “ruined” to the public[22]. According to their study, the defining factor was the Iraq war[23]. So hypothetically, America could have forgiven former president Bush for his other failures, had it not been for the Iraq war. Moreover, I think how George Bush will be judged depends greatly on whether one is ideologically conservative or more liberal. Since on the domestic front, President Bush has served the Republicans well with the tax cuts, the two appointments, and even with the rising of the education standards, I would expect a big percentage of Republicans to still think of him positively. Overall I think he will not be judged well in world history, for as discussed before, the failures of war, and almost neglect of his own people in New Orleans as well as his many other failures which were shortly mentioned, outweigh the successes. Thus, leading to the consequent demise of his image.
No comments:
Post a Comment