Many reasons for having a negative view of the current President’s possible legacy. Objections are answered as to why a positive view ought to be properly questioned.
His true and most lasting, chief legacy to America was the unsurprising and predictable winning of the Office of the President by US Senator Barack Hussein Obama. Is this really surprising talk as to a legacy? Are many readers extremely shocked by this well-founded assertion that will be below demonstrated as such? Perhaps, most future historians will deal much more kindly with his memory and dubious or real accomplishments; but, for the much troubled present, the traditionalist right, unlike most people who call themselves conservatives, will have mainly negative criticisms, harsh thoughts, of what he did or did not do during his time in office.
With his often proudly proclaimed “compassionate conservatism,” Big Government conservatism, he ruined chances of establishing the Republican Party as being significantly different from the Democratic Party in that both were, basically, perceived as wanting variants of bloated government with massive spending programs, progressive policies, and extended, cognate agencies.
Running as a liberal-moderate just pretending to be a true conservative (or rightwinger, supposedly), he barely twice got himself elected and then reelected. He did not, in fact, provide needed and requisite conservative-oriented leadership for the Republican Party; his was like an Eisenhower presidency in a basic analogy as to a failure of leadership, thus, e.g., Nixon lost to Kennedy.
This failure was, finally, perceived by most voters in 2004 and especially in 2008 with observed, shrinking majorities in both houses of the US Congress, among other examples of major political losses. This is so much the truth in that Sen. John McCain, another liberal-moderate Republican also pretending to be a so-called true conservative, had deservedly lost in his poor, inept, and ineffective attempt at achieving the presidency.
McCain, during his admittedly maverick career and during much of the primary and some of the post-primary season, had effectively come to fundamentally alienate and annoy most of the conservative base of the party. Considering that fact, it is truly amazing that he was able to get as many votes as he barely was able to get, though a truly conservative, meaning traditionalist-right candidate, would have defeated Obama by offering a genuine alternative, not a me-too, Big Government candidate.
But, returning to Bush, he was, among other failures, not able to fully secure the borders of the USA sufficient to prevent further millions of illegal aliens from coming, which constitutes a socioeconomic invasion that is still a real kind of invasion of this country. This ought not to have happened. NAFTA and GATT and much else were falsely said to have been specifically created to prevent what, in fact, they greatly had a major part, ironically, in tremendously encouraging. His appointments of some relatively conservative justices to the US Supreme Court and lower courts, often cited by conservatives as a real achievement, will be, however, mainly outbalanced and negated very effectively by Obama.
Bush, as to the greatest criticism made, had helped decimate the possibilities of conservative leadership by, among other means, terribly misdirecting national attitudes regarding the harmful effects of the welfare state through his absurd redefining of what conservatism is supposed to actually mean.
Bush, especially in his second administration, developed into another version of a Herbert Hoover who pushed through types of various welfare measures that a FDR would also have greatly favored. In the negative climate that he created, it was, increasingly, very difficult for someone to come forward as a true conservative standard bearer who would not at all flinch at the notion of avoiding those tendencies favored by Bush; this was because the leader of the Republican Party would, through his policies and programs and attitudes, help to, thereby, undercut and undermine efforts at the politically requisite differentiation of the two major political parties.
What was often proposed as “conservative” Republicanism seemed to not be much of anything in particular that was, in fact, really significantly distinct and fully different from the offering of the Democratic Party. The Federal government, in terms of the nation’s budget in particular, grew by proverbial leaps and bounds under Bush, a supposed conservative who was not.
Yes, he did prevent any further 9/11 magnitude attacks, though these particular horrid attacks, on the mainland of this country no less, had actually happened when, in fact, he was President. Since the World Trade Towers, back in 1993, had been, of course, made actual targets of terrorism, one would, logically, think that the national government, being greatly cognizant of the facts, would have taken proper future precautions; such supposed and necessary precautions, apparently, never at all existed for those now many prior years.
Why not? Will it ever really be known? Was it basic stupidity or sloth or both? Didn’t Bush or any of his many (supposedly) highly informed advisors ever notice the publicly recorded growth of terrorism and terroristic acts surely directed, throughout the 1990s, against American targets around the world?
Also, as a real shocker case, just how did a jet airplane easily get so very close to the Pentagon, on 9/11, without its fabled, onsite, defense systems being, one assumes, logically activated so promptly and appropriately? This still remains, controversially, a major unexplained and rather curious mystery to this very day. In short, nobody, as far as is publicly known, was ever rightly court marshaled for the obvious and dramatic failure to, thus, act responsibly during the terrorist attacks. The attacks were equivalent, as has been said, to the surprise of a Pearl Harbor situation, which means, as with any such kind of an enemy surprise attack, cannot then, by precise definition, be done more than once per war.
So, the nation is to be grateful for being further protected from an event that ought not and did not, in fact, occur a second time, again, by precise definition. It can, thus, only remain a fairly equivocal kind of highly qualified and questionable “gratitude” since such an event ought never to again have happened anyway. The security procedures adopted probably, with some certainty, had helped to insure this fact, though it is, as always, difficult to actually prove a negative, meaning what didn’t happen again since it is, of course, a nonexistent matter (subject to much debate).
In the meanwhile, many American civil liberties and civil rights, especially at airports and other such places, have been, to say the least, put under a truly great strain, where many little old ladies and elderly, handicapped men, besides miscreant children, end up becoming temporary “suspects” regarding possible terroristic intent. If the significant and improper suppression of many domestic liberties and rights were not held preciously in the legal and historical balance of American life, it would otherwise be just pretty funny to consider; but, it’s really not.
This too, consequently, becomes major part of Bush’s dark legacy to his suffering country; some people, as a result, might not always be so extremely grateful for this sad, terrible change in domestic culture mandated by law and the Transportation Safety Administration; and, to that extent, the terrorists have already surely won, meaning in successfully bringing about the unwanted inculcation of a culture of fear, a culture circumscribed by terrorism’s legal and other regrettable effects.
Unlike almost all conservatives, those on the traditionalist right are not so easily sanguine about the unfortunate impact of such nasty changes in America, where the ends and means get mixed up; thus, in the thinking of the traditionalist right, the idolatry of security occurs where the worship, the presumed security, becomes greater than protection of the reality of what the country is supposed to be about, inclusive of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
So, with all of the above thought clearly kept in mind, there is starting now the consideration of what can be called growing reflections about the negative legacy being left, to this nation, by the current administration and its known leader, George W. Bush. Sadly and regretfully, nonetheless, almost all conservatives will (incredibly) lament his passing from the scene of the socioeconomic disaster called the American economy; this is seen, unfortunately, with its partially devastated society’s growing armies of unemployed people, many defunct businesses, lost financial opportunities, ruined retirement funds, crippled housing industry, financially-warped banking system, etc. & etc. Need one say more?
Obama, consequently, had successfully run against a clearly failed Republican administration; McCain was identified, correctly so, with the predominant “compassionate conservatism” of that administration and its efforts at Big Government activities designed to leave the kind of legacy that Bush supposedly wanted, though not all, of course, that he necessarily got. This covers, certainly, the failed economy, which had substantially, to say the least, helped greatly to then make Obama Bush’s chief legacy to the nation.
All of this, Bush was partly, not totally (to be reasonably fair), responsible for, meaning more specifically concerning his open and enthusiastic support for Big Government solutions that had just made matters, notably and definitely, continually worse and worse, as certainly did, e.g., many of the wrongful kinds of economic interventionist acts of a woeful, historical, Republican predecessor of his, Herbert Hoover.
Neither Bush, nor McCain nor Obama, moreover, objected, but, rather, all had greatly supported the first bailout package that was, finally, officially voted into law by the US Congress; statism is, therefore, clearly riding high and mighty in the saddle, as it is so truly blessed by compassionate conservatism no less.
On the other hand, of course, members of the Democratic Party, in the US Congress and elsewhere, had mainly aided and actively abetted the many economic atrocities that were willingly committed; this was, for instance, perceived by, thus, wrongly allowing for financially insupportable mortgages, meaning the ultimate real-estate crisis at the bottom of the whole mess logically leading into an expected recession.
Bush cannot, in proper reiteration, be completely blamed, logically speaking, for the whole terrible situation that actually involves the worldwide economy, of course; but, he must justly share part of the responsibility and, thus, properly related blame and observed failure to avert the enhanced disaster made more serious by the interventionism that prolonged the growing nature of the provoked economic panic-cum-crisis, the recession that will, under Obama’s collectivist-ideological guidance, surely become a future, devastating depression.