I have been thinking about our "PLAN" discussion, and thought I'd venture this idea for debate and discussion...
I have maintained that FDR had a PLAN when campaigning for his '32 election... and perhaps that is too much credit. I'm not taking anything away from the man, but how much of the New Deal was mapped out prior to January or '33? Not much, I'd bet.
However, the man had one thing going for him that Hoover lacked from the start back in '29... some serious initiative and a drive to do SOMETHING, even if it didn't work.
When 9-11 happened, we saw Bush standing on the rubble of Ground Zero and talking to the rescue workers with a bullhorn. It was inspiring stuff, and it will make his legacy in the end, mark my words. A century from now, when school kids learn about 9-11... they'll read, hear or watch that speech, and hopefully they'll get the same goosebumps that I got when I was watching it.
This speech was followed very quickly by the invasion of Afghanistan. That invasion was textbook in its execution and delivery, and it was (at least tacitly) approved of by the entire civilized world as completely justified in its reasoning. We saw the Taliban flaunt their tyranical ways in front of the cameras, and we watched them pay for their tyrany in spades.
That was all well and good... but there seems to have come a time when our "unilateral" efforts progressed beyond our ability. I'm not saying the war in Iraq can't be won... only that it was poorly planned, even more poorly executed, and has been run like absolute shit.
FDR's actions from the day he took office to the day he died had a clear and measurable purpose to them... a purpose that every right-thinking American could clearly see. Bush had that same purpose from 9-11... but that purpose wained somewhere between Feb '02 and March '03... and hasn't been regained since.
There are other Presidents that can have the same said of them... Ike, Johnson, Nixon, Carter (bigtime!) and Clinton can all show similar lack of purpose. Either they perpetuate the status quo or react to outside action only... never proactive, only reactive. Reagan and Bush Sr (and to a smaller degree, Ford and Kennedy) are the major exceptions to this observation. They chose to be proactive in a clear and measurable manner... and both can be said to have changed the paradigm of American foreign politics during their tenures as C-in-C.
I guess I am saying that the GOP candidate that can show a PURPOSE (i.e. PLAN) for his Presidency is the one that MIGHT win in a general election against the PERSONALITY candidate like Hillary or Obama. No PLAN or PURPOSE will emerge from the Democrat camp... other than the continued chanting of "I'm NOT Bush... Bush is BAD!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This topic had been confusing me from the start but now I get it. I have just one observation from my point of view.
I can't think of a time when a President of the United States had to react to so many different types of situations foreign and domestic as George Jr. Even if he had a plan coming into his first term in the White House that plan had to go out the window as soon as 9/11 happened. Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina just to name a few majors. Now you are going to say that Iraq was not reactionary and in part I would agree but we had been dealing with Iraq for a long time and I would say that this was an attempt to end what had already become a long term military headache. Did it work? Time will tell for sure. I'm just saying that for one President to have to react to so much from so many angles maybe he hasn't done that bad of a job.
Absolutely… a perfectly valid and very true observation.
Bush has had a full plate since 9-11...and a case can be made that it was full prior to that, as well. I am not blaming him for the problems associated with the Afghanistan war, or Katrina’s devastation, or even everything that has failed in Iraq or the War on Terror in general… but I am placing the blame for the poor PLANNING and the even poorer responses he has made to events in his Presidency.
Any President on our list faces events and circumstances completely out of their realm of control… Katrina would be a good example… but with even a marginal amount of planning, or at least the ability to share information to the public in a meaningful manner, so much confusion and anxiety could have been eliminated.
Jambo has made the point time and time again that had Bush shown an accessibility to the American people, or a willingness to share information (ANY information, but preferably GOOD information) during the lead-up to the ‘03 invasion of Iraq, then the attitude of the American people towards the war would be radically different right now. A Bush version of a “fireside chat” say, or a REAL honest to God speech broadcast in prime time on a regular basis (something Reagan did regularly, by the way). During the initial 3 years of the war in Iraq, who did we see explaining the US position and policies to the American public? Bush, our President? Cheney, our Vice President? No, we saw our SoD or our Press Sec, or one of the Joint Chiefs talking in front of dozens of reporters… the most impersonal means of communicating information he could have.
Of course, that said, I am the first to admit that NO President in US history has shown a WORSE ability to speak “off the cuff” than George W Bush… but a “fireside chat” would be written by pros, not given ad lib.
No, Bush may have had a plan (in fact, I argue he DID have a plan while running), but I am arguing that he should have adjusted that plan once things changed as radically as they did. He should have had people in place ready to spin anything (and I mean ANYTHING) that came out in the press as negative towards his policies, and then delivered that spin HIMSELF… just like FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan did… via the TV (or radio, I guess… FDR was a bit before TV).
Don’t forget though… this is an argument about IMAGE. It doesn’t explain away the failures of planning and poor policy instituted by Bush himself. That’s a WHOLE other thread…
Post a Comment