G. H. W. Bush in Winter

I do not claim to have had much love for George Herbert Walker Bush's Presidency, its awkward acceptance and then active promotion of Reagan's style over substance, its caution to the point of inertia, its ultimate isolation from the byways of America. However, and despite serious unanswered questions regarding his own scandals, I never questioned his patriotism and his love of country. He was clearly a man who thought about the role of America in the world and his duty to that role.

With a true conservative's realism, and not a little of the true realist's cynicism, Bush's great accomplishment - now perhaps in tatters - was that he laid the foundations for a coherent foreign policy in the post-Cold War world and sought to strengthen (and in some cases create) the international institutions that would serve to promote that policy. I am among the few Americans for whom foreign policy concerns are as weighty as domestic when it comes to the voting booth and I found myself facing a difficult choice in 1992.

G.H.W. Bush is entitled to a peaceful retirement after long and faithful service to the United States of America.

Unfortunately, his foolish son was not content with all the manufactured millions and ersatz existential meaning a powerful father's tacit influence could secure. No, the younger George Bush was not satisfied to stumble through life from paper success to technical triumph to unaccountable accomplishment. He had to run for President too.

Success for the younger Bush has arisen from saying the right things rather than doing them, from cronyism instead of service, confrontation in the face of compromise, and jingoism over patriotism. The result is an Administration where only the words matter while necessary action languishes, where ideology confronts the nation's best interest, falsehoods have the power of authority, and bullying takes the place of leadership. All of this stands in starkest contrast with the elder Bush's stewardship and commitment.

What must a former President think of a successor who, knowing better, makes every mistake? What must a man think of a son who, given every opportunity, has learned all the wrong lessons? How can he stand to read the newspapers?

What, in this atmosphere of continuing conflict abroad, economic uncertainty at home, and deeply disturbing scandal at the heart, are we to make of this?:

"U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy will receive the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service. ... Former President Bush has the sole discretion on who receives the award, said Penrod Thornton, deputy director of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation."

A former President knows better than anyone else how difficult the job is and should refrain from jogging the elbow of the person in the office. A father should love his children. How then can the elder Bush communicate his concerns to the younger? Is anyone listening?

. . .

I am reminded of England's Henry II, successful diplomat, exceptional bureaucrat, and reluctant warrior, and his two famous sons: valiant, vain, and disinterested Richard, ignoring his domestic duties for a glorious crusade of dubious value; and unlucky, untrustworthy, arrogant John, who ruined everything he touched, alienated every people he ruled, and lost an empire. Henry never got along with his sons, never instilled in them the recognition, as Bishop Stubbs said was possessed by Henry, "that the well-being of the nation was the surest foundation of his own power".

I fear that the current Bush Administration will bear as its epitaph that offered of poor, miserable, bad King John by Richard Baker in his A Chronicle of the Kings of England:

" [H]is works of piety were very many . . . as for his actions, he neither came to the crown by justice, nor held it with any honour, nor left it peace. "

. . .

UPDATE: Changed the link to the news article as the previous one had degraded.

Posted by Martial