Bashing Bush (and Nixon) to Show One's Moral Superiority
After reading this piece at the Atlantic Community, I simply had to respond. My comment below,
"Nixon was a complex figure. He had what could certainly be considered personality flaws. However, I question if what Nixon ever did was all that much worse than the questionable tactics of his immediate predecessors, LBJ and JFK. It is well known that LBJ was not above wiretapping including his 1964 Republican opponent's plane. Additionally, JFK's AG, and brother, RFK was not above blackmailing private enterprises.
This is not to absolve Nixon of responsibility, however, Nixon is rarely put into an appropriate context. He is perpetually perceived as the dark, brooding, master manipulater who finally got his just desserts. If this is true of him, it is not too far from being true of the much more beloved JFK and certainly of LBJ, who while criticized for Vietnam, never has had the same opprobrium leveled at him. Additionally, in an era where documents like the "Pentagon Papers" were being leaked to the press and the "intellectual elite", enamored of their own moral certitude, was busy tearing down American policy , it is not difficult to imagine why a President desiring to maintain American credibility would have felt under constant assault.
I think a full understanding of this context makes it much more difficult to cavalierly dismiss Nixon and apply simplistic moral criteria to him. He was a skillful strategist and along with Kissinger, perhaps, the most creative American diplomatist of the the last half of the 20th Century. After such creative giants as Kennan, possibly Marshall, and to a lesser extent, Nitze and Acheson, I do not think any others come close to Nixon and Kissinger in talent. They changed the international dynamic in such a way as to give America a flexibility it had lost and, due to domestic political myopia, appeared dedicated to throwing away.
As for George W. Bush, he was not in Nixon's league. His own moral certitude made him inflexible and unable to alter policy trajectories when it became evident that they were going to be unfruitful. However, Bush was not the abject failure so many assume him to be.
The "conventional wisdon" that Bush destroyed our international relations is not well founded. His demeanor left much to be desired, but, thus far, for all of the tonal changes and rhetorical flourishes, President Obama is not translating his obvious popularity into much more than what Bush was left with in his second term."
Further, an examination of his policy shows it is not nearly so "black and white" as this conventional wisdom asserts.
His policy towards India seems solid and, I might add, he is popular in that nation which is is simultaneously the world's second most populous nation and the planet's largest democracy. Additionally, most have argued that his east Asian policy was adroit in managing China and relations with Japan. Given Asia's rising importance and probable long-term centrality to US foreign policy, this is not an inconsequential achievement. As for North Korea, obviously criticism can be leveled, but has the vaunted Obama done any better (yet) at this? Additionally, he is popular in Africa. While the continent is still rarely looked at as anything more than a tragedy, Bush spent more money to confront AIDS than any previous President.
An infinitely long debate could be had on Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the PATRIOT Act, WMDs , Iraq, inattention to Global Warming, etc. Indeed, the "morally superior" use any of these words to point their disdainful fingers at Bush and highlight their own piety to the altar of abstract "Humanity." I would agree, we can find serious flaws with much of what Bush did, but the criticism exceeds sober reflection, just as it did with Nixon.
Foreign policy and defense policy is not about "Good vs. Evil" choices. In conceiving it as such, Bush did err. His detractors err, however, in the same way. The tragedy of international relations is that the real decisions are most often between "Bad and Worse." Within that framework, and that framework alone, can any real context be given to evaluate a President.
Nixon and Bush were far from perfect. However, their being turned into straw men useful for burnishing one's own moral credentials does no service to those tasked with grasping the complexities with which all Presidents, indeed all policymakers, must contend.
"Nixon was a complex figure. He had what could certainly be considered personality flaws. However, I question if what Nixon ever did was all that much worse than the questionable tactics of his immediate predecessors, LBJ and JFK. It is well known that LBJ was not above wiretapping including his 1964 Republican opponent's plane. Additionally, JFK's AG, and brother, RFK was not above blackmailing private enterprises.
This is not to absolve Nixon of responsibility, however, Nixon is rarely put into an appropriate context. He is perpetually perceived as the dark, brooding, master manipulater who finally got his just desserts. If this is true of him, it is not too far from being true of the much more beloved JFK and certainly of LBJ, who while criticized for Vietnam, never has had the same opprobrium leveled at him. Additionally, in an era where documents like the "Pentagon Papers" were being leaked to the press and the "intellectual elite", enamored of their own moral certitude, was busy tearing down American policy , it is not difficult to imagine why a President desiring to maintain American credibility would have felt under constant assault.
I think a full understanding of this context makes it much more difficult to cavalierly dismiss Nixon and apply simplistic moral criteria to him. He was a skillful strategist and along with Kissinger, perhaps, the most creative American diplomatist of the the last half of the 20th Century. After such creative giants as Kennan, possibly Marshall, and to a lesser extent, Nitze and Acheson, I do not think any others come close to Nixon and Kissinger in talent. They changed the international dynamic in such a way as to give America a flexibility it had lost and, due to domestic political myopia, appeared dedicated to throwing away.
As for George W. Bush, he was not in Nixon's league. His own moral certitude made him inflexible and unable to alter policy trajectories when it became evident that they were going to be unfruitful. However, Bush was not the abject failure so many assume him to be.
The "conventional wisdon" that Bush destroyed our international relations is not well founded. His demeanor left much to be desired, but, thus far, for all of the tonal changes and rhetorical flourishes, President Obama is not translating his obvious popularity into much more than what Bush was left with in his second term."
Further, an examination of his policy shows it is not nearly so "black and white" as this conventional wisdom asserts.
His policy towards India seems solid and, I might add, he is popular in that nation which is is simultaneously the world's second most populous nation and the planet's largest democracy. Additionally, most have argued that his east Asian policy was adroit in managing China and relations with Japan. Given Asia's rising importance and probable long-term centrality to US foreign policy, this is not an inconsequential achievement. As for North Korea, obviously criticism can be leveled, but has the vaunted Obama done any better (yet) at this? Additionally, he is popular in Africa. While the continent is still rarely looked at as anything more than a tragedy, Bush spent more money to confront AIDS than any previous President.
An infinitely long debate could be had on Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the PATRIOT Act, WMDs , Iraq, inattention to Global Warming, etc. Indeed, the "morally superior" use any of these words to point their disdainful fingers at Bush and highlight their own piety to the altar of abstract "Humanity." I would agree, we can find serious flaws with much of what Bush did, but the criticism exceeds sober reflection, just as it did with Nixon.
Foreign policy and defense policy is not about "Good vs. Evil" choices. In conceiving it as such, Bush did err. His detractors err, however, in the same way. The tragedy of international relations is that the real decisions are most often between "Bad and Worse." Within that framework, and that framework alone, can any real context be given to evaluate a President.
Nixon and Bush were far from perfect. However, their being turned into straw men useful for burnishing one's own moral credentials does no service to those tasked with grasping the complexities with which all Presidents, indeed all policymakers, must contend.
Posted by Greg R Lawson at 12/15/2011 4:48 PM 
Categories: Bush Nixon History
Tags: Bush Nixon History
Categories: Bush Nixon History
Tags: Bush Nixon History
Comments