Failure of Leadership

We have a saying where I'm from, "If you are not fast or slow, then you are just half-fast". That saying pretty well sums up my feelings about George W. Bush. What attracted me and gave me reason to vote for him was his statements in the Republican Convention of 2000 where he promised leadership. His critique of Bill Clinton and all of the failures of leadership with the Clinton administration struck a chord with me. I had that feeling that George Bush understood what strong leadership meant. What he actually turned out to be was a person satisfied with only halfway measures.

The foray into Iraq is an example of doing things half-assed. Apparently, there was no plan with what to do after kicking Hussein out of power. I believe that Bush really thought that the Iraqis would begin straight away governing themselves without a hiccup. If memory serves me, there were plenty of signs of problems after Sadam's ouster. There was no authority, the Iraqis learned very quickly that they could steal and ransack their country without hindrance. By us not having enough soldiers to maintain civil order, Iraq descended into chaos. The point is that early on there was opportunity to salvage our quickly won military campaign. But George persisted, and did nothing to prevent the deterioration within Iraq.

That war did not change until finally, with urging from others, he decided that we needed additional forces to gain the upper hand.

George Bush sought to water down legislation in an effort to appease the Democrats. The results were that by trying to please everybody, he alienated everybody. The lesson here is that by not leading, he got the mixed results that he got. The education bill touted by Bush only addressed part of the problems plaguing our schools. They call it gridlock in Washington, but gridlock is much preferable to watered down legislation that tries to please everybody.

When George Bush determined that an idea was a good one, he should have championed that idea on a win or lose basis and not have it derailed into just another big spending project. But politicians accept backroom deals just to pass a final version of a bill. These bills usually have provisions inserted into them that have nothing to do with the original proposal. Just to have George Bush signing off on these unholy big spending political payoffs is enough to make one sick.

I will conclude that I personally believe that George W. Bush is a decent man with real compassion for people. However, as a leader, he has failed miserably. He was the man with the bully pulpit, but failed to make the case for his proposals to the public. Instead, he allowed the left to go unchallenged with their assertions that convinced the country that he was a liar, an idiot, and a man wanting to listen in on their private phone calls.

Being a nice person is not enough to win the day. It only allows your opposition the opportunity to convince the world otherwise about you. Other than being a strong Christian, George Bush has no political core. A leader desperately needs a core of political principles that he will not violate. That does not mean that a leader need not listen to others or be able to change his mind. But certainly, it means that you allow no violation of what you hold to be true, and be willing to make a case for those beliefs when challenged. Leaders are judged by their stands on different issues. They will fail on some and they will win some, but in all cases no matter the issue, a person must stand for one side or the other. How many fence straddlers earn a lot of praise? Remember, when a person is not fast or slow he is only half-fast.

Cheers,

-Robert-