Ruminations, March 22, 2009

(Ruminations are a little early this week. But that’s O.K. because they’ll be a little late next week. – RJK)

Rehabilitating Bush’s profile

When Harry Truman left office in 1953, his popularity was lower than was George W. Bush’s in 2009. Truman’s reputation made a comeback in the ensuing years. Many of Bush’s supporters point to Truman and say that as Truman’s reputation made a comeback, so will Bush’s. Can it?

Whether or not Bush should be vindicated, there are a lot of things working against it.

• Truman was a liberal and Bush, a conservative. The great majority of historians, in my experience, are liberals. While the general public disliked Truman in 1953, historians had a different opinion. In 2009, historians have the same – and perhaps lower – opinion of Bush than the general public.
• Eisenhower, after assuming the presidency, seldom referred to Truman and thus Truman’s reputation had a chance to recover. President Obama frequently refers to Bush in the negative (e.g., inherited deficits, Afghanistan, science today wins over politics) and thus further denigrates Bush’s reputation.
• The economy was in worse shape when Bush left office than it was when Truman left office. Regardless of what caused the downturn, presidents usually get blamed for downturns. This is true to the point where a conservative commentator last week said that Bush “got us into this mess.”
• Taxes are a complex subject and no one fully understands them entirely. That’s why the misunderstanding of tax lore abounds. For example, everyone who paid taxes got a tax reduction under President Bush; it is a common misunderstanding that only the rich got tax breaks.
• The U.S. public seems unwilling to give Bush credit for our success in Iraq, although we have won the war. There is a functioning democracy in Iraq, people are returning and economic prospects are bright although there will be some violence for years to come. “The war,” as Washington Post editorialized on January 2, 2009, “in a sense, is over.”
• Although the great proportion of civilian deaths in Iraq (an estimated 43,099 through last August in a study done by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count) came from terrorists and insurgency forces operating within Iraq, Bush generally gets blamed for these deaths. (Also note that a 2006 study by Johns Hopkins set the number of deaths at nearly 800,000 total, an average of about 800 per day – clearly preposterous. This figure is still accepted by some).
• Bush is thought to be stupid. An obvious hoax was run in 2001 claiming that the Lovenstein Institute (a nonexistent institute) of no known address in Scranton, Pennsylvania, using the (unknown) Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking assessed Bush’s IQ at 91. This hoax was so successful because there were many who were predisposed to accept that result.
• Time works against Bush. If his reputation is not rehabilitated within a couple of decades, he will be stuck with the judgment beset on him currently. How many of us can go back and make a case for the presidencies of Harding, Grant or Cleveland; to do so, you need an in-depth knowledge of those presidencies or you need to rely on the prevailing wisdom.

So, Bush’s reputation will probably not be resurrected. There is a long shot, though. Gerald Ford had an undistinguished presidency but his presidency got a boost when the John F. Kennedy Library awarded him the Profiles in Courage Award in 2001 for his courage in pardoning the unpopular Richard Nixon.

Could Bush win the Profile in Courage Award? Consider this:

In 2007, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Admiral William Fallon (Commander of Central Command) wanted the United States out of Iraq as soon as possible and the only way out at that point was in defeat. The Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker, had just recommended, in essence, that Iraq be surrendered to Iran and Syria. Public opinion was running strongly against the war. It would have taken no courage to acquiesce. However, working with Generals Petraeus and Keane, Bush approved a plan that changed tactics and temporarily raised troop levels. This plan was labeled, by the two leading Democrats for President, a plan that required “the suspension of disbelief” and a plan that would make things “worse, not better.” When Fallon tried to scotch the plan, Bush overruled him. The “surge” was implemented and worked: We have virtually defeated the enemy in Iraq and have created the second (after Israel) democracy in the Mideast — and troop withdrawal plans are in place.

A profile in courage? Maybe. Nominations for 2010 can be submitted via http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Submit+Your+Nomination+Online.htm

AIG bonuses I

A lot of people are upset about the bonuses that were awarded to AIG executives after the government paid AIG $173 billion in bailout money. C’mon. They’re only taking the bonuses that other Americans won’t take.

AIG bonuses II

Senator Charles Grassley, (R, IA) last week commented on the AIG employees who took bonuses. He said that they should “resign, or go commit suicide.” Senator, if all those contributed to the current economic crisis were to commit suicide, Congress would be a lonely place.

AIG bonuses III

Doesn’t it strike you as odd, whether or not you think the AIG bonuses were excessive, that some in Congress are proposing to pass a special retroactive law to take away those bonuses (i.e., tax them at 90% or at 100%)? Doesn’t it sound unconstitutional? Well it is; Article I, Section 9 prohibits Congress from passing a law declaring a specific person or group of persons guilty of breaking the law retroactively – a bill of attainder.

By the way, unconstitutional acts don’t seem to faze this Congress. The Constitution, Article I, Section 2 declares that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” Yet, although the District of Columbia is not a state, the House and Senate have passed bills granting the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives.

AIG Bonuses IV

The Washington Times has a solution: Why don’t we require the politicians who got donations from AIG to turn that money over to the government. Of course, that would mean collecting revenues from Senators Chris Dodd (D, CT) (recipient of the biggest AIG check), Charles Schumer (D, NY), Charles Grassley (R, IA), Representative Carolyn Maloney (D, NY), former Senator Joe Biden (D, DE) and former Senator Barack Obama (D, IL) (recipient of the second largest check).

The Times concludes that, “Politicians who helped create the current crisis should bear some of the costs.”

AIG Bonuses V

Does it strike you as a little disingenuous that the Democrats were so enraged especially since the bonuses were protected by the Dodd Amendment and Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, was aware of the bonuses sometime ago and said nothing? Harry Reid (D, NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) put the final bill together. And, Barack Obama signed the bill in February.

Petraeus on Iran and US common interests

In a Hartford speech last week, General David Petraeus was asked about any common interests that the United States has with Iran. Petraeus said that he was loathe to comment on that since that might be the only thing quoted out of a 90 minute speech. Well, here is the only thing quoted out of Petraeus’s speech.

Iran has the following in common with the United States:

• They do not want a revived Taliban in Afghanistan
• They do not want a new Saddam Hussein in Iraq
• They want something to be done about the production of poppies in Afghanistan because Iran has an “enormous” drug problem.

In fairness, Petraeus also said a lot of other quotable things.

Wen to say when

In March 1968, President Lyndon Johnson had a big problem. The war in Vietnam, along with his Great Society programs were eating cash faster than you could say “Jack Robinson” (if you were prone to saying “Jack Robinson” as a measure of speed). Gold (we were still on a modified gold standard) was flowing out of the country faster than you could say — well, you know — and the balance of payments problem was getting worse by the day. Not only that, his commanders in Vietnam wanted another 200,000 troops.

Johnson’s fiscal choices were to cut back on spending, permit runaway inflation, initiate higher taxes, or let things go and bring down the international financial systems. He chose a little bit on inflation and to cut spending by starting to wind down the war.

In March 2009, President Barack Obama has a big problem. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with his Stimulus Program is eating cash faster than you can say the proverbial. Gold is hovering around $1,000 an ounce, the balance of payments is getting worse and public debt, including the guarantees held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, exceeds $10 trillion.

Now our leading investor, China, is making threatening noises. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, seems concerned that the one item the United States is not short of is big red numbers. China currently holds about $1.5 trillion in U.S. paper and Obama wants them to buy more over the next few years. Wen wants some guarantees and maybe another basis point or two (or three or four).

Just as Johnson had choices so does Obama. Some are the same: permitting runaway inflation, initiating higher taxes, bringing down the international financial systems or cutting back on spending. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the current war effort does not call for the disproportionate outlays that the war in Vietnam did and a precipitate withdrawal from a victory in Iraq or a crucial war in Afghanistan is not without heavy costs both politically and in terms of security.

Perhaps Obama will come up with another choice, though I don’t have a clue what it could be. If he does, he’d better do it before you can say Jack Robinson.

Quote without comment

Newspaperman Gideon Tucker, 1866: “No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”

Robert J. Kulak

West Hartford, Connecticut