By Matthew LaCorteCOLUMNIST
This past week, government officials, policymakers, scholars, journalists, pundits, students and community members convened on Hofstra for its 12th Presidential Conference. This three-day, exhaustive examination into the George W. Bush presidency was an unprecedented assessment of a tremendously consequential administration.
A look at the major issues and events of the Bush presidency, many of which were covered at the conference, include: Bush vs. Gore 2000, the Bush Tax Cuts, the War on Terror (including 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, torture and enhanced interrogation, and much more), the No Child Left Behind Act, Medicare Part D, Hurricane Katrina, the Great Recession (including the bailouts and stimulus), and the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR).
Despite these significant and contentious issues, the Bush administration is still seen to onlookers, and millennials especially, as one that was, at best, incompetent and at worst, morally bankrupt. This should be rejected. I call upon my fellow students to approach analysis and discourse regarding the Bush administration with a more nuanced, elevated assessment.
Cartoonish mischaracterizations of the Bush presidency do nothing to improve discussion regarding American politics. It’s fun to poke fun at politics, I do it too, but the Bush administration should be academically criticized.
The issues with the Bush presidency are belittled when arguments to critique President Bush are rooted in unsubstantiated claims (“Cheney was pulling all the strings”), historical nonsense (“we attacked Iraq for oil”), or childish critiques (“Bush can’t pronounce nuclear”).
Simply: lines of argumentation matter. Be persuasive and not provocative. Let’s lift the dialogue and stop being ideologically lazy.
The Bush administration engaged in a war that was illegal under international law which killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East. That critique is heavier than any personal attack against George Bush’s rhetorical skills or Dick Cheney’s gun shooting skills.
After the Bush Conference, I have a newfound appreciation and a deeper understanding for politics, policymaking and leadership in the White House.
First, political commentators should stop blaming and crediting presidents, whoever they may be, for everything that occurs. The president is one person; the government is millions. Personnel issues and bureaucracy absolutely play a role in what occurs during a presidency.
Second, things change when one assumes the role of decision-maker, as opposed to Monday-morning quarterback. As many presenters said this week: there is a clear distinction between those who critique policy and those who are responsible for policy outcomes.
The ultimate question remains – what is the George W. Bush legacy? Two things must be said before we examine this question. First, his legacy still has room to evolve, especially when presidential record are opened up and scholars can assess them in full. Second, his unpopular second term produced the political conditions necessary for a no-named Senator from Illinois to become president; that should not go unsaid.
But most importantly the Bush legacy is the War on Terror and all that the term encompasses. It starts with Bush seen as the brave face of the nation post-9/11 and speaking at Ground Zero. It also includes the war in Afghanistan. But, it’s also comprised of severely dubious legal justifications for the Iraq War, torture at Abu-Ghraib and others rights violations both of enemy combatants and U.S. citizens.
The Bush legacy will continue to evolve and will be the subject of academic discourse for generations to come. One thing is certain regarding presidential legacies; the road to scholarly assessment of any modern presidential legacy goes through Hofstra. Thank you to Dr. Meena Bose, and all of the organizers involved, for directing a magnificent Hofstra Presidential Conference.
The views and opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section are those of the authors of the articles. They are not an endorsement of the views of The Chronicle or its staff. The Chronicle does not discriminate based on the opinions of the authors.