Bush’s place among the greats

The world often needs time to catch up to its giants

By Ethan Lutske
From the November 2004 Print Edition

“The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.”

—Chicago Times

When bodies lie bloodied and beaten on the field of battle oh so many miles away, it’s very easy for us to criticize. No man can truly express enough sorrow, enough remorse, enough thanks for those who die for his cause. No man can expunge so much sorrow. Not even a President.

Strong men make easy scapegoats. They have convictions. They take stands. They provide ample fodder for hatred. Men with no principles and no firm beliefs are not hated. The Millard Filmores and Martin van Burens, for all their positive qualities, may reside in the rickety attic of our national memory, and their time has come and gone.

President Bush isn’t going anywhere. On November 2, 2004 our nation re-affirmed its faith in a man of principled devotion, a man whose resolve would not be undone by the battering of a petty and petulant media. And as we look toward a second term, we grapple for precedent.

Comparisons are easy to make in times like these. Perhaps Churchill would be a good reflector. A leader in a time of war, disliked by many of his country, and actually kicked out of office after his greatest successes. Reagan? A rebirth of conservatism in America, a man who brought morning to America, and stoked the flames of our self-worth. Dare I say Lincoln? An inspiring man, keeping a divided house intact with his bare hands, forging a future that many in the country did not find prudent.

When Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address, he was lambasted. The quote given above is not about Bush, the epic mangler of our national language. It is the Chicago Times’ criticism of that seminal speech Lincoln delivered on a reddened field in Kentucky. It’s hard to imagine now: did the media really criticize those words? It does not seem fathomable that such an important, eloquent, and historical piece of writing could have been used to mock the man who wrote it. But it happened. The passage of 150 years, though, has given us perspective, and we can now see the greatness of that man.

President Bush is not Abraham Lincoln. He is not Ronald Reagan. He is not Winston Churchill. These were men for their time and place. They came along at seminal moments and propelled their nations, and their world, toward progress. In the wake of torrents of hate and strorms of anger against this President, we sometimes forget to look at the larger picture. President Lincoln’s war made us stronger, made us better. The war of Churchill and Roosevelt had no alternative, and is a defining moment in the goodness of our countries. President Reagan presided over the final crumbling of a weakened empire. We know those fates; we do not know our own. In four years, President Bush has begun a process of reshaping the Middle East, turning dictatorship into democracy.

We forget how hated our legends were. Their critics have long been forgotten, while their achievements live on. History is not premonition. We don’t know how things will end. When the Chicago Times wrote the aforementioned criticism, they were disillusioned. America was going through a brutal time, perhaps the worst we have ever known. The President had given a speech of only 235 words, two minutes long, to commemorate one of the bloodiest battles we have ever known. Frustration sets in times like these, and no one needs to apologize for an active social conscience. But perspective, especially in the media, must be maintained.

In the months and years after World War II, our military and our government came under criticism for failing to secure peace in Germany. Fascist movements were re-organizing. Disdain for the Allied presence was taking hold. The occupation was failing. In retrospect, I needn’t explain the absurdity of such complaints. But they existed.

In the 1980s, if you wanted to incur a vicious and passionate rant, all you had to do was mention Pershing missiles to a European. You were likely to be bombarded with words like “cowboy,” “trigger-happy,” and “nuclear winter.” Reagan ignored these screeds, and proceeded with a plan he knew would succeed—and he was right.

We Americans are simple people. We like our leaders to be straightforward, honest, and resolute. We have a distaste for “nuance,” recognizing it for what it often is: a statesman’s excuse for cowardice. We are four years into a national commitment. Like the greats before him, George Bush has a deep faith in the goodness of democracy and the righteous endeavors of a free people. He has been given a new lease on life by his people, four more years to continue reshaping the world into a better place. It won’t be easy, but America will stand behind him. The critics of the world will push on, unable to see the field beyond the ditch. Men will continue to fall, proving their last full measure of devotion. We trust they die not in vain. Godspeed, Mr. President, and may your next four years provide us with a future that reflects the vision of our past.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot