Interesting article on the differences between the first and second administrations of George Bush. I think it is indeed fair to say that he has changed during the course of his Presidency, but the extent of that change depends on where the observer saw him starting.
I think most hard-line conservatives saw George Bush as more of a center-right figure (like me, like George the Elder). To win the Presidency, I think George the Younger tried to talk a good game to the meat eaters, but they never really embraced him. Yes, there were signs of solid conservatism (the tax cuts, the obviation of treaties that no longer served our interests), but all in all, George Bush is a pragmatist informed by ideology, not an ideologue.
I think most liberals heard only the conservative rhetoric on the stump, and they did not look at how he governed in Texas. Thus began the caricature of George Bush as ne0-conservative gorilla, which was never even close to the pragmatic approach to governing he took in Texas.
He came to power eschewing "nation building". Then the world changed, and his mission became focused on defense of the homeland. So now we are more engaged in nation building than any of us would really like, though the activity is clearly required. He's clearly a free-market man, but again, the nation's basic health was at risk....and he acted.
George Bush is a political pragmatist with a few central ideas. I honestly believe his religious views have motivated him to act with more humanity than many on the right would like (considerable increases in health funding for Africa, the prescription drug benefit), and I think he deeply believes in a culture of life (his August 2001 stem-cell decision remaining one of the most important and well thought out of his tenure).
Has he changed in office? Yes. But I think that change was more predictable than some would see it, and I think its extent is far less than some would see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment