Morning in America II: The Bush Era

I agree with Richard Brookhiser that second terms are, more or less, pathetic disappointments. After four of the most tumultuous years of my life (and I lived through Kennedy’s assassination, Viet Nam, the horrid sixties, Nixon’s wage and price controls, Ford’s WIN buttons, Carter’s malaise, and Clinton’s intern training program, I think I’m ready for a dull four years of military victory, peace, and economic growth.

President Bush offers the best chance of those things coming true.

Second terms are usually bad because they’re dull. The Presdient is a lame duck. His handlers are thinking about his legacy. Let’s hope so.

First, Bush’s legacy will be the war on terror. If major achievements are racked up, his legacy will shine. If not, his legacy will wane. He will strive victory in this war, not because of his legacy, but because of his character. Often, though, Presidents are hampered by those around them who wish their bosses would do as Clinton did and simply stockpile his good will. This time that’s not enough. The entire Bush team will fight for victory over the enemy.

Second, Iraq must be settled. George Bush is the only candidate who aims to bring lasting peace and freedom to that country. If we fail in that effort, the war on terror will be fought in our streets. On this point, peace is only achievable through victory, and only Bush wants that.

Finally, a change in administrations has, almost every change since Eisenhower, resulted in an economic downturn. Eisenhower’s first two years brough inflation, Kennedy’s brought stagnation which he fought with tax cuts, Ford had rampant inflation, Carter had a recession, Reagan had a recession bordering on depression, Bush 41 had a recession, After one year of Clinton he told us to get used to 3% growth as a windfall, and Bush 43 had a recession. Changes in presidents cause uncertainty which is always bad news for the economy. Policies aside, the next two years will be better ecnomically if the White House’s current occupant remains.

Therefore, as if anyone is surprised, I am endorsing George W. Bush for re-election. Bush is strong man of character. Regardless of your agreement with his policies, right now history demands a President who is first and foremost a leader, a pillar of strenght, a man of conviction. That person is George W. Bush. In the absence of Ronald Reagan, I can think of no other person I would rather see in the White House.