The Gallup survey offers a bit of an explanation for the findings on Obama, with an apt comparison to President Bush at an early period of presidential popularity (the stage of the president's term matters significantly in these comparisons):
The 32% of Americans naming Obama as the man they most admire is extraordinarily high, nearly matching the 39% of Americans who named George W. Bush in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks. At that time, Bush's presidential job approval rating was a soaring 86%. It is also higher than former presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush received in any of their appearances on Gallup's Most Admired Man list.In a recent post I noted that for all of his failures, President Bush's willingness to stand up to our enemies, to stand up for what's right, is his greatest strength. Americans saw that in him at the time of our nation's greatest contemporary crisis, and I'm confident that history's record will look back favorably on this administration, with its accomplishments in foreign affairs, as providing a model of leadership that future administrations will emulate. To say this is controversial, of course. Yet, public opinion shows Bush fatigue most of all, we should note, and uncertainty about current economic times as well. Still, it's heresy to evince such favorable opinion, considering the deep well of Bush-hatred that been built up on the left, not to mention the role the liberal press has had in delegitimizing the administration's politics and policies.
In November, the New York Times published a brief roundup of exit opinions on the administration among a handful of commentators. I liked those of former press secretary Ari Fleischer best:
I’ll miss President Bush’s moral clarity. The president’s critics hated his willingness to label things right or wrong, and the press used to bang me around for it, but history will show how right he was.We'll be seeing a large number of essays on the Bush legacy in the coming weeks. Few of them will be favorable, except those from die-hard right-wingers who recognize now this administration stood firm against America's enemies and refused to cave to pacifist public opinion when the chips were down. That's an American legacy people will remember long after talks of subprime crashes and multi-billion-dollar bailouts have long been forgotten.
Shortly after 9/11, the president gave a speech in which he talked about the fight between good and evil, and that good would win. Afterward, I told him I thought he was being simplistic: “There are a lot of shades of gray in this war. I think it’s more nuanced.”
He looked at me and said, “If this isn’t good versus evil, what is?”
Then he reminded me that when Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, he called on Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” — not to put a gate in it or to remove some bricks. Mr. Reagan said to tear it all down.
Mr. Bush saw the presidency as the place to call the American people to big challenges — in morally clear terms. As his spokesman, I knew that many people would be uncomfortable with how easily he made such moral judgments. I also knew that many Americans welcomed his tough, direct and unambiguous moral clarity.
I’ll miss that direct talk. In the age of terrorism, the one thing we have to fear more than anything is moral relativism.
When Israel was attacked during the Bush years, the president always stated that Israel had a right to defend itself. After 9/11, he never referred to Israel’s counterattacks as a “cycle of violence.” He understood that when a democracy strikes back against terrorists, it’s not a “cycle.” It’s self-defense.
We haven’t been attacked since 9/11, Libya no longer has nuclear weapons, Syria was stopped from acquiring them, Saddam Hussein is gone, and Iraq is on its way to being a nation that fights terrorism — all on President Bush’s watch. His job approval may now be low, but he should leave office with his head held high. I hope his successors recognize the strength that moral clarity can provide.
No comments:
Post a Comment