Bush's Three Fatal Mistakes

in

Nobody, not even on the right, is defending George W. Bush's record in a convincing manner. No matter how one looks at it, his eight years in the White House has been a disappointment at best, a disaster at worst. Trying to pin down exactly why he became such a widely unpopular figure was surprisingly difficult for me, but I've narrowed it down to three events which did most to sink him.

Katrina: The federal goverment was too slow in responding to the hurricane, and the fact that the man in charge of FEMA was a crony with little experience made this a political nightmare. It tarnished the Republican image of being good managers and symbolized the collapse of Bush's second term agenda.

Failing to regulate the housing market: I'm not sure if the Bush administation could of stopped the subprime mortgage fiasco, but it sure didn't try that hard. In fact, Bush wanted to encourage high home ownership, particularly among minority voters, which made him reluctant to reign in the irresponsible loans being made by the banks (although he tried to reform Fannie/Freddie). This should serve as a valuable lesson for those wishing to use government to be "compassionate" instead of prudent.

The chaotic post-invasion of Iraq: This is by far the most important mistake Bush made. He and Rumsfeld sent in too few troops to control the country, and then after the insurgency began continued to refuse a change in strategy from 2003-2007 despite the fact that the insurgency only continued to gain strength during this time. They did not make serious attempts at nationbuilding, instead trying to pass off the fighting to a new Iraqi government that was weak, inexperienced, infiltrated by sectarian actors, and under constant attack from a deadly insurgency. Of course, this strategy could not be sustained. His efforts to "stay the course" in the face of continued bloodshed eventually destroyed his administration's credibility in his second term. Regardless of the merits of the surge, the fact remains that the price we and the Iraqis paid during post-invasion of Iraq remains unjustifiably high.

Looking at Bush's approval rating over time, one doesn't see any single moment where Bush's popularity collapsed. Instead, it just slowly dwindled away, relentlessly day after day, driven by first Iraq and then the economy.

Bush wasn't a failed president because he occupied a Middle Eastern nation, lied about WMDs, increased spending, snubbed our allies, wasn't conservative/moderate enough, exposed a CIA agent, met with Jack Abramoff, wanted to privatize Social Security, increased the budget deficit, violated the constitution, cut taxes for the rich, was friends with the Saudis, tried to amnesty Mexicans, gave contracts to Haliburton, supported big oil, or tortured prisoners. He failed because he just didn't grasp that he needed to act when his advisors were twidling their thumbs while the house was burning down. All of this was compounded by Bush's overall inability to communicate his goals in speeches which often sounded strained and insincere.

The fact is that nobody outside the Michael Moore left would care that there were no WMDs in Iraq if the war had cost 300 lives in a few months rather than 4,000 lives (and many more Iraqi deaths) over a period of five years. Nor would we bemoan the fact that the war hurt our world standing. Nobody would care that there was a "culture of corruption" if the goverment readily and efficiently responded to the Hurricane before it hit. Nobody would be whining now about Bush helping the rich, making free trade deals, increasing the deficit, or other aspects of his economic policy if he could have head off the subprime mortgage time bomb. (Or for that matter, making unpopular bailouts.)

His accomplishments such as building missile defense and improving relations with East Asia, conversely, would have been less obscure.

Over the last eight years Bush has been attacked in a deranged and often disgraceful manner by people more interested in making the news, pushing an agenda, avenging the past, selling a book, winning an election, making cheap shots, scoring political points, being popular, or cracking a joke than in advancing the nation's best interests. Many conservatives, including myself, defended the man against this unprecedented savagery, which sometimes led us to overlook his flaws. Looking back, though, probably 90% of what we said then is still valid and we should not be ashamed of it.

I only wish that George W. Bush had been as strong and decisive a person as the many millions of us who had supported and admired his leadership thought he was. He was a good man with an ambitious agenda and I'm thankful he stood his ground against much of the political/media/foreign policy elite. He had many accomplishments that may take time to fully appreciate. But that has not and will not save him from being harshly judged for his fatal errors.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Well, Bush was an ideologue.

Well, Bush was an ideologue. He thought his tax cuts or supply side economics would solve all problems. Bush looked at things one way. It was his way or no way. He stayed the course. He was also delusional. I know this may upset you, but I am just telling you the truth.

"Mission accomplished" clueless

"I believe in a strong dollar" clueless

"We are winning the war on terror" for three years as the war got worse. Clueless

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" clueless

"free trade" as factories close. Clueless

"America, has no problems." at the olympics. Clueless

deficits and debt and a war on a lie 

It has been 8 years of disaster.

If you think the last 8 years have been bad ...

If you think the last 8 years have been bad (Bush plus liberal congress), wait 'til you find out what havoc unrestrained liberalism will wreak!

Getting us nowhere

"You think our guy sucked! Well YOUR guy is gonna suck more! NYAH NYAH NYAH!"

Let's raise the discourse a tad, shall we?

1 and 3

are dead on.  3 was the number one mistake of his presidency, the one from which the other ones flow.  1 effectively finished his presidency, he never really recovered from the Katrina boondoggle.  Bush didn't have much control over 2.  In place of that, I would suggest his passage of Medicare Part D.  This was what shredded any small-government pretensions on the part of the Republican Party.  It created a middle-class entitlement as we mounted incredible debt on future generations.  It was totally irresponsible.

Medicare D was big spending, but politically rewarding

Bush and even McCain (who ironically didn;t vote for it) did much better with seniors than they would have without passing the bill, As for the rest of the spending spree, well, it politically accomplished nothing useful.

I'm sure getting in a war with Barney Frank in mid-decade over the GSE's didn;t look like a good use of political capital for Bush at the time. But this was an example of kicking the can down the road only to have the can kick back

He should have

Bush didn't have much control over 2.

He should have.  It was his watch.

Still, I believe history will be kinder to Geo. W Bush than the present would indicate.

But seriously, he was a sloppy manager.  He looks like a guy trying to step on a spider over and over again while a tiger is sneaking up behind him. 

Bee Ess

Looking at Bush's approval rating over time, one doesn't see any single moment where Bush's popularity collapsed.

Yes, there was such a moment.  Perhaps the name Terri Schivao is familiar to you.

 

I've returned from a sermon against the FOCA Act at church

and I think the Schiavo incident was an utter debacle. Mel Martinez was soooo clueless on that one.

"Failing to regulate the housing market"

This is sort of a "hindsight being 20/20" thing... in 2006, only the Austrians would have been complaining.

I'd say that this one should be replaced with "A Republican President, Republican House, and Republican Senate consistently passed and signed legislation that grew the government and expanded its roles in American Life".

There were warnings, they just went unheaded

There were warnings from some quarters, they just went unheaded.

What I find interesting is that major market participants ignored the signs.

Reuters, May 29 08: The financial market ignored warnings that house prices were likely to fall, a top banker said on Thursday, adding the U.S. subprime crisis and ensuing credit squeeze were due to inadequate risk management.

 

Malcolm Knight, general manager of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) -- the central banks' bank -- said sectors like securitization and credit rating agencies could not have been unaware of what was happening in the U.S. housing market.

 

Reuters, Oct 29 07: Merrill Lynch & Co Inc's own investment advice on subprime loans appears to have gone unheeded in its executive office.

Merrill Chief Executive Officer Stan O'Neal maintained an aggressive tack on subprime securities into 2007 even as investors began balking at the bonds and some in the industry labeled pricing as irrational.

Merrill Lynch MER.N equity analyst Kenneth Bruce in September 2006 warned clients that companies with subprime exposure could face lower earnings, since demand for the debt "could dissipate quickly" as credit worsened. Bruce's call coincided with soaring prices on subprime bonds even as mortgage defaults escalated.

 

Int' Herald Trib Aug 19 07 : Oddly, the credit analysts at brokerage firms now being pummeled were among the Cassandras whose warnings were not heeded.

"I'm one guy in a research department, but many people in our mortgage team have been suggesting that there was froth within the market," said Jack Malvey, the chief global fixed-income strategist for Lehman Brothers. "This has really been progressing for quite some time."

Others on Wall Street echoed Malvey's stance. "We've contended for a while that there was an issue in subprime debt," said Neal Shear, global head of trading at Morgan Stanley. "A year ago, we were aware that delinquencies were going to rise."

 

I hope the next time someone is tempted to blather on about the magic of the "invisible hand" that guides markets these words might come to mind.

 

Regarding warnings....

Perhaps Chris Dodd and Barney Frank should have gotten aboard this bill , proposed by the notorious left winger  in 2005...just a little bit before those belated warnings from 2007 

Naw, they said in 2008 that the GSE's were 'fundamentally sound"  and while the alarm bells were ringing in 2007, decided after hauling Countrywide in for a hearing decided legislation on subprime mortgages "wasn;t necessary"

Bush and his folks didn't pipe up very often or very loudly about the problems in the mortgage market; but it is abundantly clear he'd have needed the Who's sound system to get the Democrats in Congress to listen earlier in the decade;