Historians might mark US President Barack H Obama?s inauguration address on January 20 as the moment when the debate about his predecessor George W Bush?s presidential legacy reached a turning point. In his speech, President Obama used the words ?choose our better history?, to reject a ?false choice? between safety and American ideals and to recognise that American military power does not ?entitle us to do as we please?. Precisely the words to use on an occasion that marked the end of Bush?s presidency.
The debate about Bush?s legacy has been apparent for quite some time, and so have been the desperate, last-minute efforts to rescue what appears to be a legacy in deep trouble. In a recent ?Intelligencesquared? discussion hosted by BBC World News ? which was attended, among others, by Bush?s ?Boy Wonder? Karl Rove ? one word that came back and forth was ?catastrophe?. In the discussion, Bush?s defenders belaboured the point that ?no attack took place in America after 9/11? and declaimed the ?10 or 20 years down the line? mantra: Iraq would position itself as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. However, his critics were pampered for a choice: an ideologically-fixated presidency; the invasion of Iraq on inadequate intelligence which later proved wrong and the bungled occupation; Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo Bay, military commissions and interrogation techniques; jettisoning of multilateralism in diplomacy; the slow response to Hurricane Katrina; the once-thriving economy in tatters; and so on.
In the US, even the conservatives ? Bush?s core constituency-are locked in a fight. John O?Sullivan of the Hudson Institute in Washington DC writes in the December 29 issue of National Review, a conservative publication, that Bush turned out to be ?neither a conservative nor a right-wing radical?. The best description of Bush, according to O?Sullivan, was coined by the humourist Stephen Leacock in early 20th century: ?He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions.?
Or take the lowdown by Bruce Bartlett, a former Republican treasury official who became a hateful figure within the Bush administration for criticising the President in his 2006 book, Impostor: ?Bush is going to go down as one of the worst presidents in history. A lot of conservatives kept their mouths shut at the time because they didn?t want to be crucified like me.? Then comes the knockout punch, in Bartlett?s comments appeared in The Times, UK, in December: ?I thought Bush would have to go a long way to beat Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover but, at the last minute, he pushed the ball across the line and brought on the new Great Depression.?
In all the public outcry about a disastrous presidency, where is the glimmer of hope? The surge of troops was a game-changer in stabilising Iraq. A probability also exists that the invasion may eventually be rationalised if Iraq indeed becomes a functioning, enduring democracy. Then there was progress achieved on immigration reforms and fighting AIDS in Africa. For India, Bush proved to be a US President far more sensitive to and accommodative of its concerns than any of his predecessors. Yet, all said and done, it was a presidency in which failures far outweighed successes.
In his final press conference as President on January 12, Bush spoke about some of his rhetoric that has been a mistake. ?Clearly, putting a ?Mission Accomplished? on an aircraft carrier [in May 2003] was a mistake,? he said.
As far as legacy goes, less ringingly, what about the ?frisson accomplished?? The comic frisson created by Bushisms, the former President?s signal speaking style? Some of Bush?s more notable malaprops and mangled statements offer comedic windfall of such historic proportions that his presidential legacy is all but secure on that account alone. A sampling of some Bushisms makes that point abundantly clear.
?They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander in chief, too,? President Bush said on September 26, 2001, speaking about the 9/11 terrorists. Interestingly, Bush again used the word in his final press call on January 12, 2009, telling reporters ?sometimes you misunderestimated me?. The difference this time is that no one laughed: probably because Bush?s record left a different impression than mere jest. One of the famous Bush bloopers, delivered in 2000, runs: ?Well, I think if you say you?re going to do something and don?t do it, that?s trustworthiness.? Of course, trustworthiness, as Obama reminded Americans in his inaugural speech, ?must be earned?. On the war on terror, Bush said on October 4, 2001: ?There?s no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail.? Alas, the Bush administration?s handling of the war on terror was largely of that nature. ?Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we,? Bush said on August 5, 2004. In this respect, the fact that Bush never thought about invading another country after Iraq offers some solace, indeed.
?And they have no disregard for human life,? the President said on July 15, 2008, talking about suicide bombers in Afghanistan. Some of Guantanamo Bay interrogation methods ? which the Attorney-General designate Eric Holder terms as torture ? were not plain-vanilla cases of ?disregard? for human life, either.
Never mind the state of the US economy careened into a deep ditch and the gargantuan shape of the federal budget deficit he left behind, in his press meet on January 12, 2009, Bush spoke about his handling of the financial crisis (no Bushism, this): ?And I thank you for giving me a chance to defend a record that I am going to continue to defend, because I think it?s a good, strong record.?
A good, strong record? Of Bushisms, you can be sure.
rajiv.jayaram@expressindia.com