by D.R. Tucker
The argument that President Bush “kept the country safe after 9/11” has been made numerous times in conservative circles in the final days of his Presidency. That doesn’t make the argument any less absurd.
It’s fascinating that defense conservatives give the credit to Bush instead of the troops; it’s bizarre that conservatives of faith credit Bush instead of Almighty God. In truth, Bush deserves little, if any, credit for “keeping the country safe”—because the Southern border remains as porous as it was before 9/11.
In the immediate aftermath of the World Trade Center attack, Bush had all the political capital necessary to order a complete shutdown of the Southern border. No Democrat would have dared question him. The mainstream media would have been reluctant to raise a fuss. Even the immigrant-rights community would have kept silent. Yet Bush failed to act.
Seven years after 9/11, the Southern border remains at risk of being penetrated by those who wish to inflict harm upon this country. Bush bears responsibility for failing to protect the country from this risk. His unwillingness to secure the border disqualifies him from receiving legitimate credit for “keeping the country safe.”
It’s disturbing to see the American right downplay this reality as it rushes to give Bush a pat on the back for his actions as President. In fact, considering Bush’s repeated betrayal of conservative principles, it’s odd that conservatives are willing to give him anything besides a cold shoulder.
With apologies to Kanye West, George Bush didn’t care about conservatives. If he did, why would he sign the McCain-Feingold Act into law? Why would be give us No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit? Why would he support the Billionaires’ Bailout of 2008? Why would he wait five-and-a-half years to use his veto pen? Why would he swell the size of government to such intolerable levels?
It’s horrifying to see certain conservatives make excuses for Bush’s errors. In a recent Weekly Standard article entitled “Bush’s Achievements,” Fred Barnes actually cites No Child Left Behind and the Medicare benefit as examples of Bush’s “achievements.” “The teachers’ unions, school boards, the education establishment, conservatives adamant about local control of schools–they all loathed [NCLB] and still do,” Barnes writes. “It requires two things they ardently oppose, mandatory testing and accountability. [Ted] Kennedy later turned against NCLB, saying Bush is shortchanging the program. In truth, federal education spending is at record levels. Another complaint is that it forces teachers to ‘teach to the test.’ The tests are on math and reading. They are tests worth teaching to.”
What happened to the days when conservatives argued that the federal government should have no role in education? Is that view now considered outdated?
With regard to Medicare, Barnes asserts that “…It’s not only wildly popular; it has cost less than expected by triggering competition among drug companies. Conservatives have deep reservations about the program. But they shouldn’t have been surprised. Bush advocated the drug benefit in the 2000 campaign. And if he hadn’t acted, Democrats would have, with a much less attractive result.”
So if the Democrats are planning to do something wrong, Republicans should beat them to it?
Barnes is a brilliant writer, and his 2006 book Rebel-in-Chief is a fascinating look at what makes Bush tick. However, it appears that Barnes, like so many conservatives who insist that history will redeem Bush, is too emotionally invested in the man to view him objectively.
Barnes and other pro-Bush conservatives still see the President as the Hero of 9/11. I still remember the valor he demonstrated in those dark days, and how he made our spirits rise after the towers fell. However, I also remember the man who sabotaged the First Amendment by signing McCain-Feingold, ushered in an era of unprecedented socialism with the bailout, cut domestic taxes while failing to reduce domestic spending, and allowed Iraq to become a near-quagmire for nearly four years. (Intellectually honest conservatives need to ask themselves: would Ronald Reagan have waited until the middle of his second term to figure out how to win a war that commenced in the middle of his first term?)
Bush is unworthy of conservative defense or praise. He is the third consecutive mediocre President we have had since Reagan left office. It’s ridiculous to argue that he has kept the country safe when the Southern border remains unsafe. It’s ridiculous to argue that he will be vindicated by history when there is a litany of evidence to the contrary.
