Bush a Failure From the Right?

The ever pithy BeldarBlog has a harsh assessment of a harsh assessment of the Bush presidency that just appeared in the Weekly Standard. For those keeping track at home, that's a double negative, which means Beldar thinks the Bush presidency was not that bad. Beldar also points us to several other assessments of the assessment, from Powerline and others.

For those on the left, the judgment of history on the Bush presidency was forged in iron before the last chad was dimpled in Florida in 2000. Not that Iraq helped, but that was just icing on the cake. For those on the right, it's time for a reassessment, finally freed from the need to support the team.

Beldar's take is that Jeffrey Bell's takedown is long-winded and unduly focused on minutia that will be forgotten 20 years from now, while giving short shrift to truly noteworthy accomplishments. His Supreme Court appointments, for example, are remarkable in their caliber and their principled judicial philosophy, in sharp contrast to the Souters, Kennedys and O'Connors from earlier Republican administrations. [But, as my brother points out, the near-disaster Harriet Myers nomination -- unqualified and unknown -- was only saved by collective wretching from the right, so he only gets partial credit.]

Like Bell, my take on the Bush administration is less than sanguine. But my critique really centers on choosing a president -- on the skills to look for -- not on tactical decisions made by the administration.

There was a moment in 2001, right after 9/11, when you might have persuaded me that communication skills were of secondary importance. Simply by being who he was and meaning what he said, Bush seemed to be more persuasive than many an articulate waffler.

That charm wore off as the Iraq war began and ground on, however, and for months and then years on end, we were asked to watch our friends and relatives fight and die with no galvanizing sense of purpose from their chief. The false meme of Bush's duplicity in WMDs began to harden into stone, but still the White House was impotent in response. All Bush ever had to offer was his straight shooter character. His inability to engage the rhetoric surrounding the war, to sustain public support for it, and to teach and warn and prepare for the sacrifices that would be necessary were fatal flaws.

Now, more than ever, I'm convinced that the ability to articulate is fundamental to presidential leadership. And by that, I don't mean soaring but empty rhetoric of the Obama variety. I mean the ability to focus relentlessly on the principles behind the policy, and keep our collective eye on the ball.

Now we're facing a hard sell in November for a war with Islamic fascism that many now believe to be an illusion. If McCain loses, and the deniers take the reins, the blame will lie to a significant degree with a man who knew where he wanted to go but couldn't get his people to come along.

Give the man credit for unusual constancy of purpose. But it's not leadership if you can't bring your people with you. Timmy was down the well, and Lassie knew it, but all she could do was bark like an idiot until finally someone locked her in garage.