fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Lest We Forget . . .

Five years ago today President Bush made his infamous carrier landing and gave a speech before the “Mission Accomplished” banner. A couple of years ago, I collected a few responses from the President’s admirers. The best came from John Hindraker of Power Line: “Yeah, we’ve had better leaders. Their names were Washington and Lincoln. And […]

Five years ago today President Bush made his infamous carrier landing and gave a speech before the “Mission Accomplished” banner. A couple of years ago, I collected a few responses from the President’s admirers.

The best came from John Hindraker of Power Line: “Yeah, we’ve had better leaders. Their names were Washington and Lincoln. And maybe Roosevelt.”

Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO’s Corner was in rare form as well:

That looked to me like a pefect landing, to cap off a combat war won in under a month. If the likes of Fox News Channel and NR chose the pictures that would best characterize his presidency: bullhorn at Ground Zero, in a flight suit on the deck of the Lincoln, hanging with his me . . .

And again here:

This is different, guys. And it’s not just because he is a Republican and I like him. It’s different because he is a leader of a nation that is winning a historically significant war. He is using the props of commander in chief to show the nation and the world–the day after the State Department announced that terrorism is at its lowest point in decades in the U.S.–to demonstrate that we are winning this long war on terrorism, even if we still have miles to go, to show that we support these guys who fought and those who died for our freedom and for the freedom of Iraqis, Afghans, and hopefully in the future, others in that part of the world . . . Again, this is not some stunt photo op.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here

Lest We Forget

If there is one word that has lost most of its meaning over the last couple of decades, it is the word “responsibility.”  Bill Kristol digs deep into his bad of tricks and comes up with a boilerplate lecture about Republicans as the party of responsible government and Democrats as the feckless opposition.  There was […]

If there is one word that has lost most of its meaning over the last couple of decades, it is the word “responsibility.”  Bill Kristol digs deep into his bad of tricks and comes up with a boilerplate lecture about Republicans as the party of responsible government and Democrats as the feckless opposition.  There was a time when this not only seemed true, but was an accurate assessment of the two parties.  There is something very odd about this, since it was the Democrats, except for their drought of presidential wins, that were the natural party of government for almost six unbroken decades.  This generally allowed the GOP the luxury of channeling most of its energies into electing executives and focusing on foreign policy for much of the Cold War.  It is this area of governing that concerns Kristol, since the fiscal recklessness and domestic policy failures of the current administration would tend to undermine claims of responsibility, and then you realise that it is in foreign policy, the area where the GOP had cultivated a deserved reputation for being responsible and sober-minded, that Republicans have proven themselves to be the most undeserving of wielding power.

After the last seven years, if I were a Democrat I would be amazed at the gall of the first part of Kristol’s claim.  Recklessly irresponsible would be a good way to describe the current administration’s style of governing, and when it was in the majority the Congressional GOP hardly distinguished itself for making hard choices and setting priorities.  The second part–the part about the feckless opposition–is more defensible, but just as misleading for all that.  It is counted as a failure of Democratic leadership that it cannot override presidential vetoes with their slim House majority and basically non-existent Senate majority, but on the Republican side the leadership, both in the White House and the Congress, has been marked by the complete refusal to make choices and the persistent unwillingness to take responsibility for the choices they have made.  None of this is to defend the Democrats, but to drive home the point that rehashed lines about responsible Republican government no longer persuade, because the people advancing them have no credibility as judges of what constitutes responsible or good government and because the party no longer deserves a reputation for probity and weighing the consequences of hard decisions.  

Of course, in the world of Kristol, “responsibility” is defined by the policy goals you pursue and not whether you pursue them prudently, carefully or, well, responsibly.  For example, viewed rationally, invading Iraq without good cause or proper planning for the aftermath is the height of irresponsibility.  Viewed from Kristol’s perspective, invading Iraq is the epitome of responsibility and decisive leadership, while leaving Iraq is inherently irresponsible regardless of whether remaining there makes any sense.  In this view, misrule is responsible government, which is the only thing that explains how someone could have the temerity to suggest that the Republicans were still the party of responsible government.

Advertisement

Comments

Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here