PLANK AUGUST 29, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
TAMPA—This convention has had its share of odd or unsettling moments on stage —the sight of a black ex-Democratic congressman happily playing the welfare card on behalf of his adopted party; the successful wedding proposal I witnessed this morning, when the cavernous hall was nearly empty. But I’m not sure anything on stage will be able to compete with the bizarreness of what came piped in from Kennebunkport Wednesday evening, a video paying tribute to the country’s last two Republican presidents—men who, as far as I can tell, have otherwise not been mentioned once in the prime-time proceedings, or even represented obliquely prior to tonight’s appearance by Condoleezza Rice.
The banishment of the Bushes has become so expected that it seems to barely merit comment any longer. But it must be reckoned with, especially as regards Bush the Younger, who was president of this country for eight years really not that long ago (I have two young sons, and they were both born under the star of Dubya!). It is no mystery why the Republican Party moved to cut him out of the picture upon his helicopter escape in January 2009—subterranean approval ratings, an economy in ruins, and two wars gone badly wrong. What has gone insufficiently remarked upon is that the party has not moved to rehabilitate him several years into the presidency of a Democrat they scorn. One could easily imagine that the contrast with Barack Obama would set in motion the fine old loom of revisionism to spin some gauzy nostalgia for the good man who preceded the usurper. Yet that has not happened, which must be taken as a sign of just how sundered the bond is between Bush and the party that fell so hard for him in 1999 and 2000, and just how long a way the party has to go in grappling with what went wrong during his tenure.
Good luck, of course, getting anyone here to acknowledge that. I interviewed Charlie Bass, a genial New Hampshire congressman whose career tracks his party’s recent arc – a classic New England moderate who was driven from office in his party’s 2006 wipeout and then reclaimed his seat, in a conspicuously more conservative incarnation, in 2010. Here’s what Bass said when I asked about the convention’s utter disregard of Bush prior to Wednesday evening’s video: “I think that the party is trying to look forward not back, and Mitt Romney is a very different candidate with a very different approach to government than former President Bush. And…I don’t know...I wouldn’t be surprised…Well, we’re going to have George W. Bush here, we’ll probably have a retrospective at some point on all the recent Republican presidents. I don’t know if they’ll deal with Nixon, but they’ll certainly talk about George H.W. Bush. But why there’s no …. I’ve been to [many conventions] and I don’t remember long…I remember Eisenhower in ‘68 delivered a speech just like George Bush is doing but they didn’t spend a whole day, they didn’t focus on it very much; in ‘76 Jerry Ford was up and they obviously didn’t talk about Dick Nixon. In America we’re a little unique, we don’t tend to eulogize our former leaders very much. The Democrats won’t do it; I don’t know, they might do it for Clinton. I doubt it though. We just don’t tend to do it.”
Where to begin. The Democrats will indeed “do it” for Clinton—as they did in 2008, and 2004. Eisenhower delivered a speech in ’68, which Bush is quite definitely not doing. And as for not eulogizing former leaders, there’s that one guy who the Republicans talk a lot about. What’s his name again?
More candor was to be found outside the convention perimeter. At a downtown Tampa hotel, I ran into two swing voters, a father and son who live nearby and had come into town to be close to the action, which at this moment meant enjoying a mid-afternoon Stella Artois in a hotel lobby while all manner of second-tier Republican dignitaries swarmed around them. They minced no words about Bush, even though the father, John Lee, had voted for him over John Kerry. “The last year of Bush’s presidency, he was despised by a lot of people,” the son, 32-year-old Andrew Lee said. His father phrased it slightly more softly: “People thought he was good and decent, but a lot what he did was pretty awful.” But they wondered whether one reason for the lack of rehabilitation was that Bush himself had done so little in the past few years to seek it. “I don’t think he cares,” said John Lee. “I think he’s just happy being on the ranch and running a chainsaw.”
Is this true? Bush made no secret in the latter years of his tenure of his hope that his reputation would be redeemed in the long view of history, as has occurred for Harry Truman. But there was precious little evidence of an effort to encourage such a reassessment in that bizarre tribute video, which aired so embarrassingly early in the evening that I almost missed it among the parade of forgettable speakers. The video—in case you missed it, which you surely did—essentially flitted back and forth between Laura and Barbara Bush sitting beside each other on the porch and the two former presidents sitting together on a coastal Maine vista. The men spoke words of praise for each other, a poignant sight for any father-son pair but especially so in this case, when both find so little praise elsewhere; their wives offered recollections of golden-oldie moments like the time Barney the dog bit a reporter. What was so stunning about the whole production, though, was what it left out: any real mention of anything George W. Bush actually…you know…did as president. There was an anecdote about his soulful friend Putin; there was a wistful remark by Laura that she hoped her husband would be remembered for his “determination…to see us through” after 9/11.” But that was pretty much it.
Instead, there was talk from father and son about the “integrity” each of them had exhibited. It was a pure expression of noblesse oblige by the descendants of the family patriarch, Senator Prescott Bush—as if their task had been, above all, to preside over the country with the bland decency with which one ought to say, preside as chairman of a university board of trustees. And this sense of noblesse oblige was only heightened when they concluded the video by declaring that their fellow New England son-of-a-moderate-Republican powerboat-owner was up to the task of taking on the chairmanship, er, presidency. “There's no doubt in my mind Mitt Romney will be a good president,” said George 43. “He’s a good man,” said George 41. As if members of even their own party still believed, post-Bush, that this would suffice.
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
24 comments
I can't quite compute this, having only passed a year of calculus in college. My daughter (much smarter than I -- it must be Mom's genes -- has by self-study completed the equivalent of a degree in mathematics so she could enter a graduate program in statistics which she is about to complete) might be able to calculate the formula for the -- let's call it the "Tricky Dicky" formula where by we salute Presidents then despise them -- then salute them -- than despise them -- kind of an oscillating sine wave. Bushes are down; then they will spring up into mighty Douglas Firs; then they collapse in the gigantic earthquake coming from the Cascade Fault. Mark my words; Bushes (like Kennedys) will return to our favor.
- skahn
August 29, 2012 at 11:39pm
Seems to me W is not so much disappearing, as he has been disappeared. I really hated the guy when he was president, but, well...can't help but imagine how embarrasing the way he's slipped out of sight with scarcely a ripple must be to him, & everyone close to him. I almost feel sorry for the bastard.
- Haole45
August 30, 2012 at 12:49am
I don't feel sorry for him. He knew he wasn't qualified to be president, but he wanted to be, so he could show up the golden boy of the family, Jeb, and so he could show up his father by getting two terms and Saddam Hussein. He had always felt inferior to his dad and his brother, and after the two terms of his presidency, I'm sure he left office feeling even more inferior. His father and his brother didn't wreck the country. If I were him, I'd lay low for the rest of my life, just like his party wants him to.
- magboy47.
August 30, 2012 at 2:10am
Conservatives and Republicans should admit, as I do, that W. was a terrible President. He was lazy, disengaged, and dishonest. He was put forward as the GOP nominee by corporate America. In my opinion, he was one of the ten worst Presidents of the United States. Of course, honesty demonstrates that Jimmy Carter and BHO are the among the ten worst, also, with BHO, being, without question, the worst. At least the other losers, like W., believed in American exceptionalism.
- john336
August 30, 2012 at 5:37am
Bland decency in presiding over the university board of trustees? Sort of like Ms. Vargas? Arrogance is divisive and destructive at every level, whether president of the United States or chairman of the board of visitors (trustees).
- rayward
August 30, 2012 at 7:56am
The big problem with Bush-II is of course that Romney/Ryan want to pursue the same suicidal and self-defeating financial, economic and military policies. And too many reminders of how those policies turned out, a mere 4 years ago, might make people question those policies, and question how in the world Romney claims this time will be different. I always wondered how people in the Great Depression were so stupid as to allow a double-dip Recession to occur. But this is how -- Republicans with their heads in the sand demanding stupid policies that prevent or even reverse any recovery. That's not what they say. But that's what they do.
- AllanL5
August 30, 2012 at 8:24am
Do not blame the Bush women for lying to protect the reputations of their grandkids. These poor little rich heirs will read history books where their relatives ran the CIA for the only mafia operative ever elected, Nixon, and started two senseless wars because George III did not know how to run a national security network and really believed in nonexistant WMDs, and then, the crowning glory.......Katrina. Probably GOPers are busy in state legislators changing history curricula now that they have successfully eliminated science, so those future little Bushies won't have to be embarassed.
- smabry03
August 30, 2012 at 8:47am
john336 - please, do share some evidence why BHO doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. It's not self evident to me sorry.
- Nari224
August 30, 2012 at 9:30am
CORRECTION: "...The Democrats won’t do it; I don’t know, they might do it for Clinton. I doubt it thought. We just..." THOUGHT=THOUGH.
- nginsburg
August 30, 2012 at 9:44am
Nari writes: "john336 - please, do share some evidence why BHO doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. It's not self evident to me sorry." Obama was already asked about american exceptionalism. He replied that all nations are exceptional. And thus no nations are exceptional. We can't all be exceptional, can we? That says all you need to know, doesn't it? Next question?
- seattleeng
August 30, 2012 at 10:53am
Charlie Bass also continued, "Mitt Romney is a very different candidate with a very different approach to government than former Governor Romney. And…I don’t know...I wouldn’t be surprised…" I see bumpker stickers featuring the smirking Dubya "Miss Me Yet?" Yeah, like the bubonic plague.
- dubyadoubte
August 30, 2012 at 11:24am
seattle - really? Got an actual quote for that? Here's what I can find: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." "I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world," "I think we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional." That's what's called "putting words in another's mouth" to claim that he said "all nations are exceptional".
- Nari224
August 30, 2012 at 11:49am
Nari, that is the quote. But read the full paragraphs around that area of the speech. He says: 1) Everyone believes they are exceptional 2) The US shouldn't be embarrassed by our post war resources put in to Europe (as if???) 3) Our core values in our constitution, practices, free speech and equality quality ARE exceptional (even though most OECD now have these) 4) That said, other countries also have wonderful qualities, the US won't always be right, and everyone, including the US, must compromise. In other words, even though he thinks the the US is exceptional, but we're no more exceptional than others that have similar core values, and we're not always right, and that we must learn to compromise with others. Obama caught flak for this because it was watered down, mealy mouthed, and flaccid. American Exceptionalism is the belief that the US should receive a unique place on the world stage because we are better qualified than other nations to carry the torch. Period. Our accomplishments as a country stand above all others. Not just a little. But taken as a whole, these accomplishments tower over all others. From fundamental rights related to property, speech and slavery and religion, to ensuring ample opportunity for all, to ensuring those can keep the products of their work, to ensuring the most fertile and innovative society in the history of the world, to ensuring tyrants world wide will be struck down when nobody else can do it or will do it. Make no mistake, the US stands alone in these collective accomplishments. Nobody is even remotely close. See the difference in the statements? One is chest pounding backed by action, the other is "hey, we all kind of rock, and the US is not always right, but we have done some good things..." Now, if my 30 second statement on what AE is makes you gag a bit (and I suspect it does), then you just don't quite get it (AE, that is) and thus can't really argue for or against it, can you?
- seattleeng
August 30, 2012 at 12:54pm
Sorry, typo "...even though he SAYS the US is exceptional...." not thinks.
- seattleeng
August 30, 2012 at 12:57pm
"That says all you need to know, doesn't it?" Only for people like you, perhaps. I think that if you had asked any educated person up to around 25 years ago what "American Exceptionalism" meant, they would have said that it means that the United States through historical and geographical good fortune had escaped the hierarchical class system and corrupt political values that obtain in the Old World (esp. continental Europe and Russia). Thus the U.S. represents an exception to the rule and the constitution resolves the conflicts between individual rights and the wider community. The term American Exceptionalism has been dumbed down to mean shouting USA! USA! USA! However, a nation going around the world like a smug adolescent thinking it's pretty hot shit is likely to find itself in trouble now and then, e.g. Iraq.
- ironyroad
August 30, 2012 at 1:23pm
the full quote is this...i beleive he does say why America is exceptional I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that. And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional. Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us. And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.
- DHoff
August 30, 2012 at 1:27pm
No, Irony, you need only see how the townspeople of Normandy feel towards US visitors to understand exceptionalism. Like it or not, our might has been a big part of our exceptionalism. That might has permitted us to do many things others wouldn't dare tackle. Remember, most of Europe was keen to let Hitler take what he wanted as long as he said he wouldn't touch them. The very definition of unexceptional and cowardly. And like it or not, our religious foundation has been responsible for much of the decision making too along the way. In fact, much of the things most TNR readers dislike, including might, reasonable taxation, keeping the fruits of our labor, religion, focus on the individual and family, etc, are core principles at the center of any conservative platform and have made AE possible. That is why the platform is called "conservative," in that it seeks to preserve institutions that have made the country what it is. It's ironic you are arguing that Obama believes this when most here on TNR don't even believe in the concept of AE. Or if you do, you re-define it to mean something that is relatively minor. When Michelle Obama said this was the first time she was proud of her country, did that acknowledge AE? Did Obama's dad believe in AE? Did his various socialist professors and mentors believe in AE? Does Jeremiah Wright believe in AE? Does Bill Ayers? No to all is a certain answer. There is a reason the president's defense of AE was so flaccid. Again, Dinish D'Souza might be onto something with his anti-colonial meme.
- seattleeng
August 30, 2012 at 1:44pm
"At least the other losers, like W., believed in American exceptionalism." john336, How could America be that exceptional when it re-elected G.W. Bush? Of course, you might say the same thing if Obama gets re-elected. Okay, so you'll think it.
- magboy47.
August 30, 2012 at 2:59pm
George Bush thought being President was awesome because he was "famous and powerful." See? We don't factor into it. He was President for his own good. The fact that the rest of us had a terrible time of it doesn't mean that he did not have a successful presidency, as far as George W. Bush is concerned.
- Nusholtz
August 30, 2012 at 4:44pm
seattle - depends on whether you see the US's accomplishments as guided by destiny/the divine or as a general mix of good fortune (energy independent, lack of threatening neigbours), some exceptionally good fortune from decisions in its leaders and opportunities simply not available to other countries (land!). And frankly while I won't take it personally you can take your assertion that TNR posters don't believe that the US is exceptional I imagine others feel that you can stuff it. Personally I think the US is exceptional. It's part of why I moved here (amongst others). And I'm quite happy to argue basically what you posited that the US, while it's made some egregious errors is generally a force for good and provides a model in many places. That been said I can point to a number of places where the US isn't a particularly good model (medical system, privatised prison system being two). And while I believe that that's pretty much what Obama was saying, you're still putting words in his mouth. He did not say that, at all, ever, "all countries are equal", the premise from which your conclusions stem. As for Europeans being happy to let Hitler do what he wants unless he were to leave them alone: You may wish to better acquaint yourself with the less than stellar history of the US trading with Nazi Germany (see also poppy poppy Bush, source of wealth). And I don't actually recall the US declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland... that was left to... Europeans. Instead we continued to trade with Nazi Germany and in fact told the English to go to hell when they protested. And while (again, due to the lack of threatening neighbors) there are few parallels between the Nazi menace to Europe and anything the US has experienced, we can look at two analogies: 1. Cuban missile crisis. The US and USSR almost wiped out the _planet_ as the US couldn't cope with the idea of nukes just over the border, something Kruschev just couldn't understand as that was the reality in Europe. Now while the US's handling of the situation is a good example of American Exceptionalism (lucky Kennedy had read the Guns of August) it was a pretty close thing. 2. While not belittling the tragedy and trauma that was 9/11, we are talking about a loss of life that was on par with a single day of fighting in say Stalingrad or some of the worst days in WWI. Care to compare the behavior of the US population with that of say Russia or London? Not to mention that the whole analogy belies an astounding lack of appreciation for the time. The reality is that no-one stopped Hitler until he decided to attack the USSR and the Russians and the winter just ground the Germans down. The British were only not invaded due to a rather foolish assumption on his part that they'd surrender (and a lack of amphibious craft, but that would have been easy to rectify). Most normal people choose life over death, no matter how glorious. It's pretty easy to tut-tut while sitting on the other side of the Atlantic (and making money selling the fascists stuff to boot). Do tell, is that part of American Exceptionalism? And lets not even get started on whether the current GOP platform represents the definition of conservative.
- Nari224
August 30, 2012 at 4:59pm
If we are so exceptional, why are we the only Western democracy that has failed to provide its citizens with universal health care? Why do we rank behind other countries in education, infant mortality, and a number of other measures of social well-being? Why is arrogantly and blindly believing in the concept of Eternal American Exceptionalism No Matter What a necessary quality in a candidate (or for that matter, a candidate's wife)? Why do Republicans assume not only that necessity, but that their policies will enhance rather than erode the things that make us great (like, for instance, freedom from established religion)? What seattleeng advocates is mindless chauvinism. People who genuinely, intelligently love their country do not do so blindly but can see without denial that there are things that could be better and work to make them so. This whole American Exceptionalism notion and the intolerance of dissent that surrounds it set my teeth on edge.
- VAliberal
August 30, 2012 at 5:34pm
mslyman writes: "If we are so exceptional, why are we the only Western democracy that has failed to provide its citizens with universal health care" Because we provide them with cash from a job, and let them decide if they want a jet ski or health care. Our middle class has so much more discretionary cash than the EU's middle class it's almost shameful. The median salary in France is below our poverty line. And that median salary gets the living crap taxed out of it. Our median wage is a fair bit above our poverty line, and has comparatively zero taxes taken from it. Is it better to require a man to work and provide him everything, or give a man a wage and let him decide what to buy? Sounds like you thought the slaves had a pretty sweet deal. Nari writes: "seattle - depends on whether you see the US's accomplishments as guided by destiny/the divine or as a general mix of good fortune (energy independent, lack of threatening neigbours), some exceptionally good fortune from decisions in its leaders and opportunities simply not available to other countries (land!)." And of course, good fortune just always seems to follow those that are hardworking. Odd, isn't it? Yes, the US has indeed had some good fortune. But much of what you mistake for good fortune is due to a long series of smart decisions. Canada and Mexico doesn't mess with us because of our might. When Mexico though we were weak, they messed with us. Now, are we lucky Mexico turned out to be so nice, or did our decisions force them to be nice? Hitler didn't appear out of vapor. A series of very bad decisions in Europe allowed him to take root and flourish. It wasn't an accident. They had plenty of time to squelch this at many steps. They did not. Is that bad luck? Or bad decision making? Nari writes: "As for Europeans being happy to let Hitler do what he wants unless he were to leave them alone: You may wish to better acquaint yourself with the less than stellar history of the US trading with Nazi Germany (see also poppy poppy Bush, source of wealth)." Alas, it was not illegal to trade with Nazi Germany until December 1941. I'm not surprised some companies continued to do so. And I'm certain some companies opted to not.
- seattleeng
August 30, 2012 at 8:39pm
Seems to me that when speaking American Exceptionalism, one should bear in mind that our nation has been blessed with some extraordinary good fortune. Wide open spaces of fertile land for settling, for instance, only lightly populated by native peoples who could be easily absorbed, swept aside, or crushed, so that they presented no serious impediment to the hordes from Europe who came to inhabit that space. More luck came our way, in the form of great stores of natural resourcs of every type, and in ocean moats to keep us separated from the powerful nations of Europe, and neighbors to the north and south who presented no serious threat to our expansion. Those who want us all to mouth the catechism of American Exceptionalism seem to think that it is proof that we are indeed God's Chosen People , or that is it is the result of some unique virtue we possess as a people, not possessed by any other people in any other places - or a combintion of the two things. But the simple dumb luck of historical circumstance is seldom highlighted. We did have some great and wise leaders early on, I believe, who laid a good foundation for future success. But a measure of humiity, in the form of realizing that we were the recipients of great luck in our material circumstances would seem to be in order, lest we end up suffering the fate of all those who have an inordinate belief in their infallability. Conservatives, in general, especially these days, harbor the belief that if you're well-off, you are necessarily deserving & one thousand percent responsible for that - including, it seems, having chosen the right parents & circumstances of birth. Progressives, on the other hand, have a bit more humility in the face of whatever fortune life has offered them, & tend to acknowledge the role that good luck so often plays.
- Haole45
August 30, 2012 at 8:41pm
The reason I don't feel sorry for W is simple: He is too clueless to be feeling any pain. The same invincible ignorance that marked his presidency is protecting him now. The Higher Father that guided his decisions as president could hardly be wrong in the long run. The longer his vindication takes, the more far sighted he was. In the meantime he does not read the op-ed writers in the NY Times.
- Vekert
September 15, 2012 at 8:55am