6 May 2021
A Brush with Bush
By J.R. Thomas
He is a youngish man, by the current standards of Presidential candidates, and increasing numbers of Republicans are regretting that he is one of perhaps only two USA citizens not eligible for an office for which he has the ideal experience, gravitas, and appeal. He could be the new broom the Republicans so desperately need to reposition both the GOP and the Republican philosophy. But alas, it cannot be him. The new broom is the old brush, you might say, or rather, the old Bush. George W Bush is a sad loss to American politics, and like Ronald Reagan’s speeches – so humorous that his opponents often laughed with him – Mr Bush is a growing reminder as to how politics in the USA used to be.
There was a time when politicians were polite to each other, or if not, at least the insults were reasonably subtle and the language moderate. George W came at the end of a long period of civilised argument and debate when the national political conversation focussed on the issues at hand, and was not conducted by hurling invective and insults. Which is not to say that that sort of thing did not go on, it most certainly did, but usually privately and quietly. Even by the time of Mr Bush, the nastiness levels were rising, not from his Presidential contest opponents, Al Gore and John Kerry, but from the press and from the rising steamy clamour of social media. Because if anything has reduced politics to a continuous bar room brawl, it has to be the ability of us all, for the price of a cell-phone, to yell abuse at whomsoever might cross our rabid gunsights. But we are not here to lambast the twenty-first century, but to catch up with Mr Bush, and if not to wish him back into current politics, at least to hope for new candidates more like him.
Mr Bush of course cannot run again for President; all Presidents are limited, since Franklin D Roosevelt was elected to the Oval Office four times, to a maximum of two terms. They can run for the Senate or Governorships or even the House, but no retired President has run for other office since Andrew Johnson, who had several attempts, losing battles for the Senate and House, but finally winning a Senate seat in 1874, and dying the following year. (William H Taft, having done one term as President and returned to the law, ended up as Chief Justice of the US in 1921.)
Bush left office as one of the most reviled Presidents of modern times in 2009 and vanished back to his spiritual homeland of Texas, and his much beloved ranch, complete with family, Scottish terriers, and Presidential Library. The abuse that was poured on him was largely the result of the Iraq wars, and, in particular, not the military victory over Saddam Hussein, but the failure of the allies to prepare for the subsequent peace and to re-establish a stable state in Iraq. Similar criticisms are levied at Tony Blair of course, and in many ways they are valid; though historians will advise that a common failure of victors is to consider what to do after the victory parades. In this case, both Bush and Blair (who became good friends) are of a similar personal make-up. They are both deeply devout, open practitioners of their religions, and believe in the perfectibility of mankind. (You may sneer at such possibilities in politicians, but this is not unknown – Jeremy Corbyn is another example of the type, substituting socialism for religion.) Blair and Bush felt that, liberated from Saddam, an open state and modern democracy would flourish. It may yet, but it is certainly taking a while. There was another similarity between these two buddies – they both were in office to take the blame for the 2008 recession and both left office before they could do anything much about clearing up the resultant mess.
But there is one big difference: Mr Bush is seeing a transformation in historical and public perceptions of his presidency; Mr Blair isn’t (though one suspects it will soon come). The Bush presidency, away from the gunsmoke, and the rattle of fingers on hostile keyboards, was a reasonably successful one, with post-Reagan economics of low taxation producing economic growth, but with pre-Obama improvements in medical care and social services for the poor. Overseas, the War on Terror got rid of a seriously nasty dictator in the shape of Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban was removed from control in Afghanistan. Bush began a long term reorientation of US policy to build closer links with South American nations. And, as so often, what didn’t happen is perhaps as important as what did. There have been no more major terror attacks on the USA, a result of greatly improved intelligence systems and enhanced diplomacy. And, Donald, he did not try to buy Greenland, we might note on this 200th anniversary of Napoleon, a man whose vaingloriousness forced him into selling Lousiana, or, Joe, seek jobs for his children on inflated terms.
Nor did the Bush regime communicate by text; it had a stable and constant approach to policy, and it did not dispute electoral results, and Mr Bush has attended the inauguration of all his successors. Just saying, Donald. Yup, Joe, you might learn too. Mr Bush did not try to alter the constitution to the benefit of his political party, he pursued his manifesto policies, not amending them within the first few days, and he held regular press conferences and was accessible for interviews and debate. He was a traditional Republican in many ways, but a one who was determined to be a President for all the American peoples.
What does a retired President do to fill his days? He builds a Presidential Library, of course (cue jokes that the Trump version will just contain his mobile phone), and he writes his memoirs, toiling himself without a ghost writer, a modest 500 pages or so. They considerably outsold those of Bill Clinton; which is interesting. And he learns to paint. As he says in the introduction to his new book, that is an odd thing to do at the age of 66, but he turns out to be not a bad artist at all. But what is interesting is what Bush has decided to paint, and what it says about both him, and the way politics has changed. His first book was a collection of paintings of US military veterans, the proceeds being to help veteran medical charities. His latest book, just out, and the accompanying exhibition in Texas, is called “Out of Many, One”. It is a collection of Bush’s works over the past few years, of portraits of immigrants to the United States, with a little written background to each one. They are not brilliant, but they are not bad; the work of a gifted and somewhat passionate amateur. But, of course, what they are, more than mere paint on canvas, is a political statement that both parties should closely regard. They are showing a gentle civilised way of life, they say that immigration has always been the American way, that immigrants bring new talents and strengths to a mixed society. They are about understanding, tolerance, and quiet integration. And they show that in George W Bush the American people had a fine and decent man as their President.
What a pity he could not be so again.
