Heavy Lifting - thoughts and web finds by an economist
     I also contribute to Division of Labour Load HL's Front Page
Thursday, April 22, 2004


Bush - Mental Midget or Giant?


It seems that the libs are confused about how smart or stupid Pres. Bush is. Perhaps he is so smart he seems stupid, or so stupid he seems smart? Or maybe he is like Reagan, the dems simply can't understand how simple ideas can be so powerful. A good example is the Bush Doctrine of selective preemptive strikes (it can be argued that Afghanistan and Iraq were not strictly preemptive, but okay). Is the doctrine a stroke of genious that will lead the way to irradicating Terrorist Islam and making the world a better place, or is the doctrine inherently too risky and will lead to a further deterioration between two cultures?

The Bush Doctrine is one that can be and should be RATIONALLY debated, but alas there is little on the other side other than Bush is owned by Halliburtin, he went after Saddam to avenge his father, and he has cost us our valuable allies in France, Russia and Germany. These arguments dodge the central issue that the Bush Doctrine has been and will continue to be an major influence on world events.

This article (thanks mom) points out that
"The Bush team really did, in a moment of crisis, come up with a very important statement on grand strategy, which has not been taken as seriously as it should have been taken, particularly within the academic community."

This was said by John Lewis Gaddis of Yale, a big-time lefty historian. Naturally, the Kerry campaign is less than enthused about the Bush Doctrine and wishes to put the cow back in the barn. However, it is refeshing to see someone (anyone) from the political and academic left actually own up to the idea that the Bush strategy is fundamentally new and different and deserves a good debate - do we go with precision airstrikes and feel-good diplomace, a la Clinton, or do we go with the in-your-face "tear down this wall" attitude of Reagan-Bush?

Why can't the debate begin? Perhaps the left thinks Bush can't handle the debate and therefore it isn't worth their time? Are the libs afraid that the American public can't handle the debate? Are the libs afraid that, in the end, Pres. Bush and the U.S. really had no choice after 9/11 and therefore they will lose the debate? It may all come down to the fact that Pres. Bush has continually been talked down as a mental midget and thus to attribute a tag of "grand strategy" to Bush would be problematic.

Gladdis also had this to say
"There certainly has been a tendency to underestimate Bush himself and to view him in the way that Reagan was viewed when he first came in "as being a cipher, manipulated by his own advisers," he added. "That turned out not to be true of Reagan, and it's turning out not to be true of Bush as well."

Amen, brother.

Comments: Post a Comment



Purchase




Le Chai - galerie du vin



Support



Popularity

Posts that contain Craig Depken per day for the last 90 days.



Contacts

Heavy Lifting's Main Page
Email Me
Atom Feed

WWW
Heavy Lifting




Great Links

Money I Found Today

Heavy Lifting - Firehose style (56k warning)



Recent Posts




Archives


home


Visitors
Site Meter Blogroll Me!



Credits

Modified maystar design
powered by blogger