resurrectionsong

February 26, 2004

Politics or Personal Values? (StumpJumper)

Back in October I boldly declared that President Bush would win reelection in 2004. I went even further by declaring that he would win in a landslide. Recent events have caused me to reevaluate this. Bush’s prescription drug bill, immigration initiative, and support for a constitutional amendment regarding marriage all issues on which I disagree, sometime vehemently, with the President. I am not alone in this. A victory in 2004 seems far less assured than it did four months ago. Like many others, I am left wondering just what Bush is thinking.

The "Email of the Day" on AndrewSullivan.com for Wednesday, February 25 attempts to answer this question. The writer states that "I'm straight and also a Jew and, to me, the Bushes - sensing defeat in November - are going to tap into homophobia, anti-Semitism and whatever else it takes to secure their base." In short, the writer feels that Bush is making his decisions based purely on political motives. Although I question Bush’s actions, I question this assessment of Bush’s motives.

I recently read a book about the President called "The Leadership Genius of George W. Bush." My review of this book was brief and it avoided politics because it was originally written for a leadership class that I am taking. That review leaves much unsaid. One of the main points of the book, which I did not expand on in my review, is that Bush places a heavy premium on personal values. In fact, he bases his life on them. The authors of the book begin with the clearly and frequently expressed personal values of the President and then, throughout the book, make a compelling argument that Bush has always consistently made his decisions based on these values and not on political expediency. If their assertion is correct, and I tend to believe that it is, then it is more likely that Bush’s recent actions have been based on his personal values, too, and not because he feels that they are the actions that will most likely win him a second term.

As much as I disagree with President Bush on the current direction of his administration (on most things short of the War in Terror, that is) I see nothing in his actions that are inconsistent with his previously stated positions and his political and personal records. I want desperately for our President to share my beliefs exactly, he never has. I want to be able to say that he has betrayed me, but I really cannot. I know when I voted for him that he did not agree with me on every issue and I voted for him anyway. I believed that he was the better choice. I still believe that he was the better choice. One of the reasons for this is his dedication to his personal values. I would rather have a President who consistently bases his decisions on clear personal values than one who bases his decisions on polls. I may not agree with President Bush on everything and I may not vote for him in 2004, but I respect him and his concern for personal values.

Posted by stumpjumper at February 26, 2004 07:29 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Nice!

Posted by: nathan at February 26, 2004 10:11 AM

I am not sure why you are attracted to these personal values and actions of a leader:
- avoiding responsibility )avoided serving the army in Vietnam)
- intimidating critics (exposed undercover CIA agent)
- covering up mistakes (coverup of the above, coverup of drunk driving arrest)
- using governmental influence to stuff own pockets, and pockets of friends (Halliburton, buying land for Texas Rangers stadium)
- lying under oath (SCI funeral home case)
- stifling 9-11 investigation because of his financial ties with Bin Laden family

The only personal value I see is putting profit above everything else.

People with weak will like Bush because he shows "strength" by recklessly going against opposition. But I do not understand people turning a blind eye to his profiteering "personal values".

Posted by: Zoran Lazarevic - Laza at February 26, 2004 12:04 PM

Zoran: Apparently I wasn't clear in what I said. For that I apologize. When I said that "I may not agree with President Bush on everything and I may not vote for him in 2004, but I respect him and his concern for personal values" what I actually meant was "I may not agree with President Bush on everything and I may not vote for him in 2004, but I respect him and his concern for personal values." I never said that I am "attracted to these [Bush's] personal values" nor did I say what the personal values of Bush, either cited in the book or perceived by me, actually are. What I said was that "I disagree, sometime vehemently, with the President," that " I may not agree with President Bush on everything," and that "I may not vote for him in 2004."

Again, I apologize if I gave you the impression that I am "turning a blind eye" to his faults.

Posted by: StumpJumper at February 26, 2004 12:14 PM

ZL-L,
Well, in some cases, your conclusions are based on what your preconceived notions were to start with.
For the most part, though, certain attitudes and views are born out over time, or not.
For instance, If President Bush were truly as vile as you seem to think he is, you would see more Republican Senators and Representatives and Governers refusing to work with him. He would not have been able to get the tax cut package passed. He would not be able to get Tony Blair to support him on the invasion of Iraq. He would not have been able to assemble a coalition that includes Australia, Poland, Spain, Japan, Turkey, et al (altho lacking France and Germany, yes) to volunteer to send troops to Iraq.
Your viewpoint is yours, and you are entitled to it. You certainly can find data points to support your view, but only be ignoring many other more significant points.
For instance, do you condemn every person who did not serve in the Army in Viet Nam? Do you have something against someone who was in the Air Force helping protect the US from the very real threat of an attack from the USSR...?
Where do you get your actual evidence about his ties to the bin Laden family...?
The CIA agent was actually exposed by a reporter, or, at worst, by some White House staffer. Blaming that on Bush is problematic, at best.
But you won't agree with my assessments, indubitably. But the more vehement your assertions, the more they can only be supported by ever-more-subtle conspiracy theories.
Simply put, your conclusions don't really fit the preponderance of the evidence. Particularly when you consider that the bulk of this post was based on a review of a book on leadership that was written by a liberal and a conservative working together, who both concluded that Bush is an excellent leader.
I hope that helps you understand where we're coming from.

Posted by: nathan at February 26, 2004 12:18 PM

Well said, Nathan. I didn't want to go off on that tangent since it had nothing to do with what I originally wrote, but I'm glad that you did. Suffice it to say that on the issues you discussed in your comments, you and I are in 100% agreement.

Posted by: StumpJumper at February 26, 2004 12:38 PM