Farewell from Bush, farewell to Bush
I watched President Bush’s farewell speech last night. I was struck by his demeanor, which seemed subtly different to me: more relaxed, less smirky, more graceful. Perhaps more indicative of his real self, the one he shows to friends and family? Of two things we can probably all agree—the man feels relief, and has earned a long vacation.
Bush’s words in the speech were devoid of the anger and bitterness one would think almost anyone would feel if in his shoes. I believe he has been treated poorly by press and public, and that history will look on his administration if not with huge approval (although that’s possible too), then certainly more kindly than the first draft of history has judged it.
I was similarly struck by Bush’s calm and class at his final press conference.
I think Bush has grown in the course of his presidency.
listening to him last night, I can’t get over the feeling that as frustrated I’ve been with his administration at times, I still think of him as one of my favorite Presidents.
Don’t care what other people are saying, I’m going to miss him.
Following on to Jewels… My feelings about Bush aren’t simple and the following lyrics aren’t a perfect correspondence, but they do capture something about this president, at least for me.
I’d thrown in a youtube link a la neo, but the current two available are pretty bad. Better off to preview track 14 atalbum at Amazon. Buy it if you like it.
Godspeed, Mr. President!
What a contrast in demeanor from his press conference!
History’s assessment of Bush is likely to change as well to reflect the tenor of the times and as new comparison data arrive.
To say Bush has failed is a relative statement.
If Obama makes the economy even worse and/or fails to win wars he starts, Bush will start to look like much less of a failure.
Consider Reagan. At his death, he was widely hailed as a successful president in the mainstream media. But his legacy has changed since then, and rightly so.
We can now observe Reagan’s legacy a little more clearly, since Bush II embodied it by implementing many of the same policies. We can see, yet again, that cutting taxes while raising spending stifles growth in the long run because it creates unwieldy deficits that crowd out private borrowing and sap business confidence.
Much worse, we can see that Reagan’s “black check” approach and secrecy in fighting the Russians led the U.S. to support Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan. The full costs of that disastrous mistake are immeasurably enormous.
So it is that history unfolds. We will, appropriately, have a different historical view of Bush one year from now, and yet another five years from now and still another 10 years on.
Bogey’s posts here and elsewhere are splendid examples of how difficult discussion is across the red-blue divide.
His assumptions, weightings, data and assessments are so different from my own–and often seem flat-out fallacious–that it’s hard to know where to start in response. I’m grateful that folks like grackle, oblio and others manage to do so, as I lack the patience.
However, note the global frame that Bogey starts with–as do most Bush opponents: “To say Bush has failed….” There is no notion that some things worked, some didn’t, and some are mixed. No, Bush failed is where they start, and only material that supports that claim is allowed.
But I’ll agree that we will look at Bush differently in the future. And I’ll bet that it will be far more favorably than the Bogeys do now.
Remember that Harry S. Truman left office with an approval rating of 22%.
I, too, lack the patience to deal with “Bogey’s” screed of dissatisfaction with President Bush. He makes plain his contempt for the man.
I think President Bush is a class act and, truthfully, I could not find it within myself to be so patiently forebearing in the face of such savage domestic enemies.
I will NEVER forgive or forget what they did to him. I have nothing but bad feeling and spite for them. President Bush may be very different about these matters. God bless him. As for people like me, I’m sure we can play a role in this ongoing domestic war between the traditionalists and the collectivists. They will get no quarter from me and I ask for none. No one hates the Left more than former Leftists like me.
Contrary to the impression Bogey imparts that Reagan’s stature has diminished over time, seeHistorical rankings of United States Presidentsby scholars and note that Reagan’s ratings have improved, such that three of the four most recent rankings place Reagan in the top quartile of presidents.
Of course, Bogey’s standard is the mainstream media, and by that standard he may well be correct. The mainstream media has become steadily and more blatantly pro-Democrat and anti-Republican since Reagan left office.
I just finished reading Judith Warner’s treatment of the end of GWB’s presidency (she likened it unfavorably with Jack Bauer, the fictional hero of “24.” How appropriate, since her critique was steeped in the fictions strongly held by her upper west side readership, Obamophiles all, and immune from perceiving how the world really operates. Next week, after a suitable period of Obama worship, she’ll have to return to her normal topics of chronicling the world of affluent, self absorbed yuppies. Blea! as Lucy would say.
Charles Krauthammer rings the Truman bell for Bush with an excellent piece that begins (with my emphasis):
Then-Governor Bush spoke at my husband’s employer around ten years ago. He says the man we saw last night is more like the man he saw ten years ago. For Bush’s entire presidency he’s been asking what happened to the man he saw: humorous, articulate, a man comfortable in his own skin. I guess now we know. God bless him. I hope he can enjoy the rest of his life.
Neo – could it be that we are getting a bit arch in our old age?
re: oh, bother
Nice sentiment. I hope we can, too.
Hot Air has 2 interesting links up. The first is Justin Frank’s psychoanalysis of Bush, which reads to me like Frank’s projection. I guess I have to throw in denial too because Frank doesn’t seem to take the threat of Islamic terrorism very seriously. Maybe he’s been so busy he lacked time to read the newspapers.
The second link is to a WaPo story from yesterday about how nice it is for Americans abroad to be liked again. I’ve lived abroad since long before Bush was elected, and this stupid adulation of Obama by foreigners makes me sick. They have no idea of our laws, no idea about Islamic terrorism, and no willingness to stick their necks out for anything. They remind me of a thirteen-year-old girl swooning because a varsity football player said hi to her. (Yes Millebrand and Steinmeier, I mean folks like you.) I’ve heard too many cheap shots about America, from McDonalds put downs and gun-toting redneck clichees to “serious” critiques of our lack of culture and sophistication, to give a d**m about what they think about Bush.
…how nice it is for Americans abroad to be liked again.
This seems childish to me too. These foreigners who dislike Americans under Bush are pretty much the same people who dislike Israelis for defending themselves against an enemy bent on exterminating Israel.
Somehow I don’t think the opinions for foreigners so morally flawed should be the measure of how we assess our leaders and our policies.
My feelings about President Bush have changed over time. As I watched him as Governor here in Texas I was almost certain he would be President. I feel that he is basically a good man and much of the criticism directed at him was wrong and unfair. I had very mixed feelings about the Iraq war, and think we probably should not have started it. Yes, I realize there was WMD there, but Korea and Iran have them too. Iran is the greater threat. The “true believers” are in charge there, but Saddam was basically a secular guy. But I have also believed that once the war started in Iraq, it needed to be finished under honorable circumstances- not some irresponsible withdrawal like the left was pushing for.
President Bush lost me with his support of the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill. One of the callers to the local radio show here said that “He lost me when he started spending taxpayer’s money like a drunken Democrat.”. LOL! I admit there was a part of me that was relieved when McCain lost, because I was so sick of him stabbing Conservatives in the back. As Rush said today, McCain will give the Democrats their Filibuster proof majority when the time comes.
I should have said, ” If Iran does not have WMD, they soon will.”
JB — What was Bush like as Governor and what made you sure he would become President?
huxley- this may sound strange, but I would say partly it was his connection to a certain previous President. Its sad, but connection matters these days. It gets you some free press. It was also his demeanor. Before the press demonized him so, he came off as this likeable, common sense, optimistic guy that you thought meant well. Of course I think Huckabee is a very likeable guy, but I would not willingly support him for office- because of his support of the Mexican Colonial Outpost, aka Consulate, being built in Arkansas. ( There are around 50 of those things in the US now and their purpose is to aid illegal settlers.)
I did not get plugged into the much more vast amount of news on the net till a couple of years ago.
One thing Bush did as Governor was to force utility companies to invest in “alternatives” . That is how Texas became the leader in Wind generated electricity a couple of years ago- passing California by a longshot now. ( The national press ignored what a “green” thing Bush did.) I did not know about that till a couple of years ago.
Replies like Booger man here clearly represent proof that Darwin wasn’t always right.
“If Obama makes the economy even worse and/or fails to win wars he starts, Bush will start to look like much less of a failure.”
Failure in what way? Winning the war in Iraq? Umm, that was almost achieved with the Democrats connivance. Fortunately, appeasers such as Kuchinich and Booger failed to succeed in that approach.
“We can see, yet again, that cutting taxes while raising spending stifles growth in the long run”
The remarkable growth during Reagan’s presidency would seem to quietly devastate this absurd opinion. The reversal of the Clinton recession was largely frustrated by actions of liberal democrats like Barney Frank and Dodd.
“Much worse, we can see that Reagan’s “black check” approach and secrecy in fighting the Russians led the U.S. to support Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan. ”
Interesting, when fighting Russian Communists, the Muslims are ‘terrorists’ but fighting freedom loving people like the Americans, they are transformed into ‘freedom fighters’? That’s a flimsy switch Booger. Thanks for being so desperate. lol
“So it is that history unfolds. We will, appropriately, have a different historical view of Bush one year from now, and yet another five years from now and still another 10 years on.”
Absolutely, one you won’t like very much boy. OOhh rah!
History will be kinder where it’s deserved to him for sure.
His legacy is immense. He singlehandedly stemmed the tide of rot and decay that is Democratic policy, and for that alone rates as one of America’s greatest Presidents.
You must be very young. Those of us of a certain age (ahem) remember being taught to “duck and cover” in school. That admonition went the way of poodle skirts thanks to Reagan. And yes, before you object, it was thanks to Reagan, and Reagan alone. It was no coincidence that they didn’t fold when faced by that pussy Carter.
Mere dollars and cents are trivial by comparison with Reagan’s geopolitical impact.
The tipoff is that even the mainstream media – no friends of America there, not a one – have come around and now give him kudos. That may be to stave off lynching by the populace if they fail to do so.
Occam’s Beard – I agree with the sentiment, but give some credit to Thatcher and John Paul II as well, and in the same way: a steady declaration of the truth.
Well, at least Pres. Bush is stepping down peacefully. How many of the leftist tried to say he would attempt to stay in power? Leftists projection I guess. I see Chavez is making another attempt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7834514.stm
A good man. A kind man. A brave man. A patriot. A man strong enough to bear the abuse of smaller, I should say meaner, men and women. A stubborn man, at times, and sometimes stubborn about the wrong things. A flexible and patient man, sometimes too patient and too loyal to his subordinates. A high-minded man. A man who freed millions and spoke for the future of freedom to the end.
A man who has carried too great a burden for too long and has earned his rest.
I believe Mr. Bush’s reputation one day will be rehabilitated, but not within the lifetime of the Boomers.
Oblio — Beautifully put.
I’m hoping that it will be sooner than the lifetime of the Boomers. In fact I’m sure of it.
Oblio,
I’m insulted. I’m a Boomer (a younger one, not one of the Cohort of Commies from the Sixties).
Fred — I’m a leftist of the cohort of the early Seventies. I hear you; I feel you.
I’m a Christian. I’ll forgive, but I’m not forgetting either.
As to Geroge W. Bush, to reiterate:
The tenure of GWB being President will go down as a remarkable time when lousy education reached a tipping point for Americans ability at critical thinking.
And why exactly is it that Europeans who reflexively critisise America never get recognised for the ignorant little rednecks that they are? Sitting on your ass all day drinking espresso, and having a nanny state direct all facets of your life is turning out to be the biggest bigot making machine in the history of the world.
FredHjr and huxley, no offense was intended (and I suspect none was taken). We are of an age, or I am just a tad behind you.
I didn’t really wake up until 1981. I was working in Washington, somewhat sympathetically with the unilateral disarmament Left, when close contact convinced me that I was playing for the wrong team.
My point is about individual and group belief. At the individual level, the awareness of having been so vicious and unfair would create a crushing burden of guilt. To speak of it will mean exclusion from the circle dance.
Catching up with old high school and university friends on Facebook has been instructive in this way: they are almost all Lefties of various stripes. There is an unbridgeable chasm between my experiences and my worldview and theirs, and the gap has been widening for more than 25 years.
Practically speaking, it will be bad business to speak well of Mr. Bush for at least the next four years. So rehabilitation will take a while to get started and there will be tremendous resistance to any attempt to correct the record.
Most of my friends remain leftists. Tellingly, the ones who take an active interest to research both sides of political issues and to read history, all have moved to the center-right.
huxley, how do you manage to keep your Leftie friends?
I decided perhaps a dozen years ago not to discuss politics in any casual or social setting, as I had discovered that I never made any friends that way and I lost a few. My exception is, if the friend is a pro, i.e. that is where they make their living. It’s not worth debating with people who don’t know anything, and it just makes them unhappy.
After losing some friends and some communities, I’m coming around to that wisdom. Just the other day, I emailed a friend, with whom I’d been discussing the presidential campaign that I’d prefer not to continue the political portion of our emails.
The correspondence was interesting for a while–she had been surprised that I didn’t vote Democratic anymore and wanted to understand that better and possibly enlighten me back to the correct side. But she was unable to support her positions substantively, and kept veering off into psychologizing and feeling justifications, then requesting that I not “argue” with her. Tthe writing seemed on the wall that further discussion would likely end in a break, so I said I didn’t want to continue.
huxley, that was a good decision. I also don’t argue with my mother: I have never yet won an argument with her, and I never will.
Regarding Bogey’s criticism of Reagan and Bush, I’ll limit myself this time to pointing out only one of the faulty premises put forth as simply one example of how far from reality the post was.
It’s interesting that critics of Reagan, such as that by Booger above, tend to use the deficits as one reason to put down the history of his administration – yet I have to admit that there ARE similarities between Reagan and Bush.
The Reagan deficits, which are always pinned on Reagan by his leftist critics, were the result of an agreement between Congress and Reagan.
Reagan would get his tax cuts (which Bogie criticizes) and Congress in turn would cut spending.
Didn’t happen.
Instead, as soon as tax revenues went UP as a result of the tax cuts and the subsequent economic expansion that followed, Congress began spending like there was no tomorrow and deficits started increasing.
Reagan, despite being president, could not cut the spending.
He had to either veto the spending bills in their entirety or spend the money as Congress mandated.
Anyone remember the Line Item Veto measure he pushed for unsuccessfully? The out of control Congressional spending was the reason he pushed this measure.
He had little choice in the matter, yet the deficits are always blamed on him instead of where it truly belonged – Congress.
Now look at spending under Bush.
Lot of deficits there, and the hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending annually were criticized by the leftists again even though Congress is the one actually writing the budget.
But wait – there’s more to the comparison between Reagan and Bush.
In BOTH circumstances (and most especially in the past 2 years of the Bush administration), the DEMOCRATS controlled Congress and wrote the budgets!!!!!!
Once more, a Republican president could either veto the bill – and be lambasted for shutting down the government – or he could allow it to become law and continue the necessary functions of government in spite of the deficit spending.
To place the matter in even greater clarity, consider that the hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending over the course of the last year of the Bush administration are about to be completely dwarfed by the TRILLION PLUS deficit spending – and that’s just for starters(!) – the now democrat controlled presidency and democrat controlled Congress are about to engage in.
Where, oh where, are the leftist budget hawks now???
Their outrage is entirely situational and completely dependent on whether or not their socialist brothers control the levers of power – and they have no compunctions at all about lying over the real reasons for what’s happening.
It is a textbook definition for hypocrisy.
huxley, oblio,
My journey was a tad circuitous. Graduated from high school in ’73. Did the Army 1973 to 1976 (a three year hitch), and then did college ’77-’82 (took longer because I transferred from a college in Gunnison, Co and moved back to be with my folks in New Hampshire, transferring to the University of New Hampshire). After college, was a Jesuit seminarian for three years, getting an M.A. in Philosophy from Loyola of Chicago. Left the Society of Jesus, re-entered the world (as they say) and enrolled in the MBA program at Boston College, where I got an MBA in Finance. From ’77 until about 1987 I was a Marxist and did not hide that fact, but was also an academic type of one who also was listening to the arguments against socialism, liberation theology, and utopian thought coming from the likes of Michael Novak (and others). I too found many of the people on the Left unsavory, and some of them even vicious and amoral, which offended my ethical sensibilities. When I met my wife in ’87 I was already breaking with the Left, and there were strong intellectual as well as personal reasons for the break. Besides, in graduate business school I learned even more about how and why our economic system is so successful and why socialism is a failure, always was a failure, and ever shall be a failure.
So, I was a Marxist at 22 and by age 32 I had broken with it. I figure that people who stick with socialism beyond that age have something very seriously wrong with them in every dimension. Also, because I remained a Catholic throughout I experienced condescension and snobbery against me that took its toll. The hatred of Judaism and Christianity will wear down the best, which is why many Christians who remain on the Left eventually have to make so many compromises with their faith that they, quite unconsciously, end up with a subtle change in their faith loyalties. I could see the ways it was happening to me, and eventually I had to draw a line somewhere.
My former “friends” on the Left want nothing to do with me since I moved slightly right of center. It was not I who initiated the divorce. The thing about the Left is that if you do not share their religion, they have no use for you. I suppose, in the final analysis it’s probably all for the better. My decade on the Left convinced me that many are not true and deep intellectuals, as they don’t do a lot of self-criticism or introspection about their own values and ideas. It really is a kind of religion for these people. It’s actually pathetic and unfortunately it could be very dangerous for our society as a whole.
Of late I am decidedly more gloomy and pessimistic, which is actually not my natural way of being. I have come to believe that I am living in the time of the decline of Western Civilization. There is so much evidence of it all around us. Right now the Unholy Alliance of Marxism and Islam seems to be winning the day, even if they are experiencing military setback in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the wider cultural and ideological war in the West, they are winning and it’s truly depressing.
FredHjr, if you work in investments, you have good reason to be gloomy. But since you have studied deeply, you know the optimists tend to win, especially as investors.
So will it also be in the larger struggle. The party of freedom has made tremendous gains in the past eight years. We won’t keep them all in the years ahead. We need to focus on where we can rebuild our confidence and generate our energy.
You must have noticed that the pro-freedom side has been conspicuously lacking in self-confidence and intellectual vigor over the past three years. We need to pick the ground on which we can win. We need to take on the Left with facts and logic, avoiding temper tantrums and name calling. When the issues become clear to the voters in the middle, we tend to win; when they are a soggy emotional mess, we tend to lose.
Events also have a way of clarifying the issues. Reality has a way of interrupting fantasies. Our opponents will over-reach in various ways. We will get our chances.
And we need to have courage. In my opinion, the Republican politicians lost their nerve over Iraq in 2006; they broke and ran, shouting “sauve qui peut,” and they got slaughtered at the polls as a result. If they don’t make their case and defend their policy, the Democrats won’t make it for them.
Leadership is required, and firmness when it come to the grip. I’m sure you read this last fall: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGVlY2RhOGM0MWE5MjNmMGM2ZjY0NzcxMjMzMTc5NWI=
Whittle probably places too much faith in the steadiness of the old warhorse McCain; but the message is the right one: Defend the City. You will understand the the rightful meaning as Defend the Civitas.
Oblio,
I still remember that day in May of 1973, before I had graduated from high school, when I was in the Army’s delayed entry program and had to report to the U.S. Army offices on a wharf in Boston, MA, when I stood with a couple of dozen other young men and took the oath that every young serviceman takes upon entering the U.S. Armed Forces. Even though I am many years past my service completion I STILL TAKE THAT OATH SERIOUSLY. I believe our civilization is worth defending and I will not go down without a fight. Ask any NRA member who also joins a rod and gun club. We know – and most of us are military veterans – that it is possible our nation may need us again. Against enemies foreign and domestic.
But Bill Whittle’s description of what is happening in the Santa Monica High School and in just about every university across this nation and in Western Europe is very discouraging. Our young people are the seed corn of the nation and our civilization. They are being corrupted, deceived, and enervated of all natural energy and feeling for the land and ideas they were born to.
This is what depresses me. For every fine young man and woman, enlisted and officer, in our military there are perhaps at least five who are either not contributing, don’t care, or are outright hostile.
If I knew that hewing to the high road of ideas that you so well described in your above post would win the day, I would never succumb to the despair I feel. But I no longer believe that these people are in possession of minds that can think clearly, ponder deeply, and integrate the heart and mind in a synthesis that is elevated. Let me tell you what really drove it home: the recent research that revealed that over two thirds of our young people, from junior high through college and tech schools cheat on exams, papers, homework – you name it. Blew me away when I heard it. Worse than I thought it was.
It’s about more than just the loss of patriotism. It’s the loss of whatever shards of honor were left. As patriotic an American I believe myself to be, there are higher loyalties that cling to. God and Church. My fellow human beings, as God’s children. Not some kind of “citizen of the world” faux polity that the current White Horse riding into D.C. this weekend espouses. Being a Roman Catholic does not mean that one cannot embrace the idea of e pluribus unum – not just for our nation but for all the world. I DO believe in the nation state. I don’t believe in world government. I cannot believe in world government, when that world government wishes to supplant the Constitution of the United States of America, an extraordinary document that is one of a kind and which declares that human dignity and rights come from the Creator. Not Man. Not The Government.
I live my Christianity as an American, who believes that we must do what we can to help others but we must first secure the liberties for our people that much effusion of blood achieved.
And despite all that, FredHjr, and because of what you believe, you should not despair, and you should not give a counsel of despair. You aren’t alone. We have allies all across the world, and we will have even more. More of them are young than you would guess.
There are leaders out there, whose names we don’t know today, who will shoulder the unsought burdens, as Mr. Bush did after 9/11. His graceful exit is his last service to his country and world, for awhile at least.
Now put your energy and your intellect to work in a place where you can develop some leverage by changing a few minds.
The arguments may rage for some time about the nature of George W. Bush’s Presidency. I expect it will always be controversial. In fact it is guaraneed to be because of who will be writing history over the next couple of decades.
There is an aspect that will be largely ignored, but is telling. Bush came to the Presidency in swirling controversy; already vilified by a large per centage of the country and by a near unanimous majority of the pundits and opinion makers. His transition was truncated by the legal mechanations of the opposition and made extremely turbulent by enemies in the Senate who fought his appointments. He inherited a largely hostile career bureacracy. Throughout his Presidency he struggled against these same forces. Yet as he leaves office, he has orchestrated one of the most cooperative and seamless transitions in history. Even the same hostile press which opposed him at every opportunity acknowledges that he has extended himself to insure that the incoming administration has an opportunity to succeed. His efforts have extended to making hard economic decisions during his last week in office to relieve his successor of that burden during his first days.
Bush’s actions in this regard, particulary viewed in contrast to his own experiences demonstrate to the American people, and to anyone in the world who is paying attention, the noblest aspects of democracy. It also demonstrates the character of George W. Bush.
I will miss him. I suspect the nation will miss him more than most can imagine at this point.
Even though I did not vote for Obama and I have very serious issues with his lack of forthrightness during his career up to this point, I HOPE he does right by the nation. I would hope that the gravity of the office and the shocking realities of this world will compel him to change and go against his Red Diaper Baby bloodline. On the other hand, people like Pelosi and Reid inspire no confidence. I don’t think they would be bent by reality. The deck seems very stacked against us these next few years.
George Bush is a classy man. He was very generous with a nation that has totally crapped on him. He deserves so much better than a vicious and ungrateful nation has dealt back to him. We are living in interesting times. The confluence of events and forces heightens the sense of danger and foreboding I feel.
Even when I coudn’t stand W, I never saw him as a smirking chimp. He has no lips and he has a nervous twitch when it comes to talking, therefore it looks like a smirk.
I’ve been reading political blogs for five years now, and if anything, I think how we feel about W is more indicative of our own behavior. I am beginning to think that it is more of our own self-righteous, self-entitled personalities coming through, as W does not do exactly what we want him to do…be it stop the war in Iraq, kick Mexicans back to Mexico, or provide us with free gas, or become a Democrat.
No one is the same person as President. We as a society will not allow it Hence, the Governor of Texas IS different than the President of the US. Especially since the President had to be told that war was declared on us by a non-state entity while reading to children. And that Americans would not stand by and be victims again.
Want a perfect example of a smirk? try Joe Biden
By the way, I never voted for W. I voted for Gore in 2000, wrote in Green in 2004, and wrote in Liebermann in 2008
President Bush will be missed by one or two across the pond as well.
Above all, as the coming confrontation with political Islam becomes ever more obvious, he will be remembered as the first western leader to reject the appeasement consensus, to actively challenge the UN (rightly) and to diminish the physical threat posed by the Islamist, through the action in Afghanistan.
Whether the military action in Iraq will be viewed favourably by history is less certain, but at the end of his time in office he can justly claim to see the insurgency in Iraq defeated and democratic rule in place of the Nazist Ba’ath regime. Though his opponents would not admit it, other despotisms around the world have hesitated to threaten America during his Presidency for proper fear of military action. He has faithfully discharged his duty to use the resources of the state to protect the people.
I hope and pray that his successor will have the same courage and wisdom.
…how nice it is for Americans abroad to be liked again.
It is grossly naive to believe that Americans abroad are “liked again”. When were we ever “liked”? In the sense that we may be more tolerable to those who dis-“liked” us before, not much has changed about European feelings for us since the end of WWII. Living in Spain during the Reagan years, Americans were viewed as being somewhere between “Dynasty” and “Dukes of Hazard”, and yet Europeans had an insatiable appetite for American clothing, music, and rhetoric, and this belied a stereotypical class envy. While Europe continues its lurch toward socialism and social discontent, it makes sense that capitalism continues to fuel envy. With GW Bush, the envy grew in proportion to the media’s campaign of against him. That assault developed into the anti-intellectual, irrational hero worship of Obama, a man who has done nothing but give pretty speeches to warrant such an attitude. Today, the Europeans still resent us as much as they used. The French will tell you they should be able to vote in our elections. Abroad, there is still as much envy and resentment as before. We may be more acceptable because we voted for a fraud who belives the same things they do, but believe me, we will not be “liked again.”