There
is probably no politician about whom I have been so conflicted over the past 25
years than George H. W. Bush. His death last week reminded me of this
conundrum.
There
have been a lot of knee-jerk reactions to Bush's death; not uncommon in such a
situation. Typically, I extend my usual 24-hour waiting period by a number of
days in the event of such a high-falutin' death. This allows time for a reality
check after the initial sorrow. Hell, both Nixon and Reagan were remembered as choir
boys in the hours after their death. However, as the "death week"
wore on, we remembered that one was kicked out of office for his attempt to
undermine the goddam Constitution while the other came within an '80s megabite
of being put on trial for giving guns to the enemy. (Somehow, Reagan weaseled
out of that one.) Anyhow, I like to give these things REAL time before
commenting. In the case of Bush, the wait is over.
Amazingly,
Bush the Elder escaped the taint of both of these political scandals – two of
the biggest in American political history. His low-key demeanor and his talent
for flying under the radar helped. And even when he bore ultimate
responsibility – the choices of the idiot Quayle and the thoughtless ninny
Clarence Thomas, as well as the decision to have Lee Atwater run his campaign –
he rarely bore the brunt of blame. Even when he compromised his inherent
principles and changed sides on the abortion issue in 1980 to secure a place on
the Republican ticket as VP, there just wasn't much of a noise made. And this
was AFTER he'd called out Reagan for the sham that was Voodoo economics,
proving that he could be ahead of his time.
George
was never the win-at-all-cost political monster that Nixon was, but he knew how
to PLAY THE GAME. He was both a ferocious fighter and, at times, remarkably
diffident. He never lived down looking at this watch during a '92 debate as a
sign that he was "out of touch."
Bush
was always an affable fellow and a gentle soul, his intermittent overgrown frat
boy humor notwithstanding. He's certainly a retroactive breath of fresh air,
given the loudmouthed peckerwood currently wasting space in the Oval Office.
It's
always been hard for me not to like him, even though I never voted for the man;
there are many things I admired about him. Certainly, his Navy service; his
willingness to partner with Clinton on humanitarian relief initiatives; his
ability to admit a mistake. This ability came to the fore in '92 when he reversed
his "no new taxes" promise because he knew it would be good for the
nation. He also knew it would cost him the election. He did it anyway. VERY
admirable.
I
even admired his efforts with regard to Iraq and Saddam. It was the right thing
to do and he did it in the right way. Bush's speech on that January night in '91
announcing the war – complete with the details of the strategic thinking he and
his team conducted, and the decision he had made – remains a masterpiece of
SERIOUS political communication, as opposed to some "shining city on a
hill" crap.
Of
course, Iran Contra is where George and I part ways. We may never know the
degree to which he was involved in the decision making on that one. And it
remains a significant demarcation point in the quest to define Bush either as a
devious co-conspirator or an innocent bystander.
In
the end, thought, I'm convinced that some 90% of the moves he made – right or
wrong, good or bad – were done with the best of intentions for the nation
rather than himself. And for a politician, that's pretty rare.
