The Presidential Campaign 2008
I guess I understand the driving force behind the “rhetoric” in presidential campaigns, but I certainly don’t agree with it. Why not more measured responses? Are issues in any historical period so simple to fix that in retrospect one could easily look back and know what the correct tact should have been, and that if those choices were not made it’s right and good to blast those who made them? As much as I have a problem with Bush’s stances in recent years, it seems to me that in blasting the former president, the “office of the presidency” is lessened. Wouldn’t it be better, or at the very least look better (especially to the other nations) if the words expressed when speaking of the past presidency, were to the effect that the former president faced some difficult choices during his tenure and he made the best decisions he “thought” to make.
Don’t we look a little stupid if we more than suggest that the president took our nation to war wrongly? What message does that send to Iraq, Iran and the nations that committed troops for “our” cause? Was every decision and tact that Bush took clearly wrong? Wouldn’t such an assessment, bring into question our whole form of government? Are we so confident in or proud of our constitution and form of democracy that we believe there are no consequences by demeaning the “efforts” of those previously elected to make what choices that they might have made? Were there no checks and balances in place, no requisite number of advisors and confidants to insure that an American president could not run the country into the ground?
I submit the only criticism that’s appropriate when looking back at a former president, is to question the effectiveness of the “choices” made, not attacking the person and certainly not judging the President “alone”, as responsible for a seeming undesirable outcome. Bush didn’t take us to war, our system did. Going to war perhaps can not be judged to be an absolute wrong choice and tagged only on the president, if we used what information we had, and consider well all who had a hand in the determination process, and if we further also consider well if we had handled the aftermath “better”. Mistakes were probably made, but they were not made in a vacuum. Perhaps Bush’s score card of effectiveness in retrospect will be considered to be poor, in comparison to former and future leaders, but our system still carried the burden.
I would love to hear presidential candidates speak of our nation as progressing, even if it’s evident that a previous president was less effective. Is not our nation and “how” it moves forward more important? I would love to hear words, not, “We can’t have 4 more years of the Bush legacy!”, but words to the effect of, “Let’s learn from the previous administration’s efforts and make some adjustments!” That would respect the President and the office! That’s bringing the parties together, and respecting all who did the best that they could and hoped! Let’s let our political national conventions show the world that we respect our own and are willing to learn. Where’s the humility and the pointed yet reserved intelligence expressed of the larger picture, which would seek to foster thoughtful reflection of the issues and their complexity; respecting those of the past and their efforts, rather than speaking in a manner that just gets the convention masses charged up to an altered emotional state, for a fleeting and often times regrettable moment, as history can attest!
I guess I understand the driving force behind the “rhetoric” in presidential campaigns, but I certainly don’t agree with it. Why not more measured responses? Are issues in any historical period so simple to fix that in retrospect one could easily look back and know what the correct tact should have been, and that if those choices were not made it’s right and good to blast those who made them? As much as I have a problem with Bush’s stances in recent years, it seems to me that in blasting the former president, the “office of the presidency” is lessened. Wouldn’t it be better, or at the very least look better (especially to the other nations) if the words expressed when speaking of the past presidency, were to the effect that the former president faced some difficult choices during his tenure and he made the best decisions he “thought” to make.
Don’t we look a little stupid if we more than suggest that the president took our nation to war wrongly? What message does that send to Iraq, Iran and the nations that committed troops for “our” cause? Was every decision and tact that Bush took clearly wrong? Wouldn’t such an assessment, bring into question our whole form of government? Are we so confident in or proud of our constitution and form of democracy that we believe there are no consequences by demeaning the “efforts” of those previously elected to make what choices that they might have made? Were there no checks and balances in place, no requisite number of advisors and confidants to insure that an American president could not run the country into the ground?
I submit the only criticism that’s appropriate when looking back at a former president, is to question the effectiveness of the “choices” made, not attacking the person and certainly not judging the President “alone”, as responsible for a seeming undesirable outcome. Bush didn’t take us to war, our system did. Going to war perhaps can not be judged to be an absolute wrong choice and tagged only on the president, if we used what information we had, and consider well all who had a hand in the determination process, and if we further also consider well if we had handled the aftermath “better”. Mistakes were probably made, but they were not made in a vacuum. Perhaps Bush’s score card of effectiveness in retrospect will be considered to be poor, in comparison to former and future leaders, but our system still carried the burden.
I would love to hear presidential candidates speak of our nation as progressing, even if it’s evident that a previous president was less effective. Is not our nation and “how” it moves forward more important? I would love to hear words, not, “We can’t have 4 more years of the Bush legacy!”, but words to the effect of, “Let’s learn from the previous administration’s efforts and make some adjustments!” That would respect the President and the office! That’s bringing the parties together, and respecting all who did the best that they could and hoped! Let’s let our political national conventions show the world that we respect our own and are willing to learn. Where’s the humility and the pointed yet reserved intelligence expressed of the larger picture, which would seek to foster thoughtful reflection of the issues and their complexity; respecting those of the past and their efforts, rather than speaking in a manner that just gets the convention masses charged up to an altered emotional state, for a fleeting and often times regrettable moment, as history can attest!
No comments:
Post a Comment