The Facade Presidency

By TFP

This an examination and critique of George W. Bush's presidency. Many issues are summarized with essential details to illustrate the dichotomy of administrative actions versus public needs. The content illustrates what and how the president acted using all the powers and then some of the executive branch. It provides a different perspective on some of his "Decision Points."

• Language: English
• Publisher: TFP
• Release date: Dec 11, 2010
• ISBN: 9781458162434

TFP

I’m Tim Porter. I write under the pseudonym TFP. I grew up in the Midwest and earned two masters’ degrees; one in research biology (MA) and, the other, in public administration (MPA). I worked in healthcare services for over thirty-five years and retired as a highly respected quality analyst who has a reputation for challenging conventional wisdom to illuminate the facts. I’ve written poetry for years (unpublished) and have begun work on three other books. I ran for public office and continue to analyze and write about the political landscape. All comments are welcome. I can be contacted at [e-mail].

Book preview

The

Façade

Presidency

Published by TFP at Smashwords

Copyright 2008 TFP

All Rights Reserved

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This eBook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author

DEDICATION

I dedicate this book to my mother who encouraged me to think through all that I purveyed and to explore possibilities before proceeding. Her encouragement and help with my strengths to build a vocabulary will always be with me. She pushed me to go to college to learn and absorb as much knowledge as possible. I also want to thank my wife, Diane, for her patience and support as I struggled to complete each chapter. One other I would like to thank is Julie who challenged me to communicate, in essence write a book, on how I knew George W. Bush was a charade. Initially, she read and critiqued each chapter as it was completed and provided encouragement to complete the entire book. This is the culmination of that endeavor.

PREFACE

This piece offers an analysis on George Walker Bush, his administration, his policies, and how our country and world have been affected. It is an exposé on the deception and obfuscation by him, his executive team, and administration with the help of a Republican Congress and enabling media. What makes this writing so imperative was G. W.’s tour of speeches, press conferences, and rule changes to whitewash eight years of deception and betrayal.

It is easy to be critical of a public personage and their positions. I attempted to delineate the basis for this critique even though at times it was difficult to put my thoughts into words that evolved into cogent phrases and sentences. It was my intent to explain the results and who and/or what entities benefitted from the positions, regulations, and policies put forth by G.W.’s presidency. Many issues are summarized with essential details to illustrate the dichotomy of administrative actions versus public needs. The content of this work was to illustrate what and how the president acted to benefit a specific minority using all the powers and then some of the executive branch.

I am not going to try to hide or obfuscate anything I wrote. So, I don’t like George W. Bush. I believe he was a poor candidate in 2000 and he continued along that road to become the worst president in history. What I will do is attempt to put into perspective what he said as a candidate, the effort he utilized to deceive the public in the development of his ‘plans’ once he became president, and how he has set back our future as a nation. Most of the quotes used throughout this book are as printed reflecting the present tense in which they were initially written. The intent is to capture the moment and not change the context or intent of the quoted writer. If I took their words out of context or deliberately distorted their intent, I would have compromised the integrity of this work. I did everything I could to not do that. Even as I used quotes from many excellent sources and perspectives from written opinions this book is about the way I feel his presidency impacted our country, the United States of America.

****************

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 – The Façade President - References

Chapter 2 – Some Significant Appointees - References

Chapter 3 – Security and Foreign Relations - References

Chapter 4 – Media, Political Shenanigans, and Bureaucracy - References

Chapter 5 – The State of Our Economy - References

Chapter 6 – Healthcare - References

Chapter 7 – Science: G.W.’S Beliefs & Policies - References

Chapter 8 – Science: Infrastructure & Energy - References

Chapter 9 – Science: The Environment - References

Chapter 10 - An Inevitable Legacy - References

Author Comments

About the Author

Chapter 1

THE FAÇADE PRESIDENT

Fools are more to be feared than the wicked. – Queen Cristina of Sweden

George W. Bush

A person who should be president should be of strong personal moral character and have a desire for public service that is in the best interest of the public that includes a sense of noblesse oblige. Every person should have a sense of noblesse oblige (benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank) but this is especially relevant for any person who seeks the highest office in our democracy.¹ It is imperative for every person to have a moral foundation but it is more than imperative for a person who is selected to lead as president. Moral leadership provides the moral compass for a functional society.

The problem with the above statements is with whose definition one bases the concept ‘moral character.’ Since no person is perfect, what attributes make up the intent of the above? My intent coincides with ethics, called moral philosophy, which involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. More specifically, Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others.² This is evidenced by how a person purports them self, interacts with others, and the policies they enjoin. A person who should be president is a person who has self-awareness but does not resort to snobbery or arrogance. As the main character, portrayed by Michael Douglas in the movie "The American President stated, Being President of this country is entirely about character."³ Character is developed through hard work and hardship and reflects behaviors and competency.

Of course, character looks at the person. George W. Bush’s (G.W.’s) main assets were his charm and affable demeanor that allowed him to sell tofu to a cattle rancher. Many women considered G.W. to be handsome and a fun loving good ole’ boy that everybody liked. Using his own words, G.W. often said, When I was young and irresponsible, I was really young and irresponsible. His adolescent behaviors carried into his thirties even by conservative estimates. He even stated publicly not to ask him about being sober before 1986. What that implied though he avoided directly was that he liked to consume prodigious amounts of alcohol. G.W. did admit to drinking ‘too much’ in those years and described that period of his life as his ‘nomadic’ period of ‘irresponsible youth.’⁴

There were substantiated rumors he also enjoyed drugs other than alcohol. President Bush was concerned his mistakes as a youth would disqualify him from running for the nation's highest office, said an old friend who secretly recorded private conversations in which Bush appears to acknowledge past drug use. I don't want any kid doing what I tried to do thirty years ago, Bush said in recordings made when he was governor of Texas and aired Monday (February 21, 2005) on ABC's Good Morning America. And I mean that. It doesn't matter if it's LSD, cocaine, pot, any of those things, because if I answer one, then there will be another one. And I just am not going to answer those questions. And it may cost me the election.⁵, ⁶ G.W. ‘refused to deny use of cocaine’ as had been noted on more than one occasion. In early May 1994, a Houston Chronicle reporter asked Bush whether he'd ever used illegal drugs. Maybe I did, maybe I didn't, Bush said. What's the difference? The day after the Chronicle story broke, Bush held a news conference in Lubbock. What I did as a kid? I don't think it's relevant, he said. I just don't ... don't think it matters. I think what matters is my view on prisons, welfare reform and education.⁷ I could have passed the [FBI] background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States – a 15-year period, Mr. Bush said. He won’t deny using cocaine or marijuana, though under persistent questioning he said that he hadn’t used cocaine in the last 7 years."⁸ As noted, G.W. was very evasive, typical of an addictive personality.

Below is a brief overview of G.W. from his high school years until he became governor of Texas. G.W. followed his family’s legacy by going to Andover prep school and then on to Yale after considering University of Texas. Born with a silver spoon G.W. didn’t have any concept about hardship and lack of opportunity. His biggest fear was about flunking out of Andover. At Yale, he wasn’t athletic enough to follow in his father’s success but made his own niche with his affable character and his vocal opinions. Bush played intramural sports with gusto and was elected president of his fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, which was known as the hardest drinking jock house on campus. He seemed to be oblivious to the anti-war sentiments overwhelming campuses at that time basking in the atmosphere of fraternity parties.⁹

In college, G.W. failed to synthesize the 60’s social revolution. Obviously, he also did not pay attention in his science classes. His actions portrayed somebody who did not have a clue about evolution or the process of establishing scientific facts. If one does not apply oneself then it does not matter what educational opportunities one has available. If one does not utilize an opportunity to learn, it is lost. When one has an addictive personality he/she tends to view the world with a C-student attitude; Oh, well, I did my best. It will work out. When one only tries just enough to slip by, one doesn’t comprehend theory and historical perspectives and, therefore, is unable to synthesize the implications of current events to facilitate effective progress. Those who have an addictive personality believe that consequences do not apply to them. In that context, G.W. often displayed willful opposition to this father and his father’s legacy but admired him to the point that he joined the secret society Skull and Bones. One source revealed that Bush was given the name ‘Temporary’ as the secret name he was obligated to have for himself because he couldn't think of anything else. He never changed it.⁹

After graduating, he just wanted to go back to Midland, Texas to hang around with the local guys. Instead, with the specter of the draft and Vietnam, he decided to join the National Guard. Bush learned that there were pilot openings in the Texas Air National Guard during Christmas vacation of his senior year at Yale, when he called Staudt, the commander of the 147th Fighter Group, and, he said, found out what it took to apply. Two weeks before he was to graduate from Yale, George Walker Bush stepped into the offices of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Field outside Houston and announced that he wanted to sign up for pilot training. It was May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list. Bush had scored only 25 percent on a pilot aptitude test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics. Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied."¹⁰

That commitment (to the National Guard), in turn, was to frame a period of aimlessness and drift that Bush now calls his nomadic years. As the war and the youth culture of the 1960s rocked America, Bush partied and dated with gusto, dabbled half-heartedly in business and politics, and flew jets part time. Apart from his Guard commitment, he was unemployed for stretches that lasted for months.¹⁰

Bush took a transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard in 1972 to work on Republican Winton Red Blount's campaign for the U.S. Senate against Southern Democrat John Sparkman. That May, Bush first requested a transfer from his Texas unit to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base, a postal unit, after he had already moved to Alabama to work on Blount's campaign. The transfer was approved by his superiors in Houston, after the fact, but ultimately denied up the chain of command, since the unit only met one weekend night a month and had no airplanes. Bush was finally approved for a transfer on Sept. 5, five months after he had already established a residence in Alabama, to the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush's required physical exam officially came up in late July or August due to his birth date, but records indicate he never showed up for a physical in Montgomery or when he returned to Houston after the election. Bush was never punished for skirting Guard requirements, even though the military had passed a rule in 1969 warning volunteers that failure to fulfill the contract would result in immediate selection for active duty in Vietnam. For not taking a physical, though, he was grounded that August and never flew again.¹¹

In 1974 he obtained permission to end his six-year service obligation to attend Harvard Business School.¹¹ A month after Bush starts at Harvard Business School, he is formally (and honorably) discharged from the Texas Air National Guard    eight months before his six-year term expires.¹² Bush's entry into the program came five years after his graduation from Yale, and after a series of dead-end or unfulfilling jobs. He was 27 and clearly had not found his niche yet. His last job before he returned to the East to attend Harvard Business School, as a social worker helping poor children, was arranged by his father after George W. drunkenly confronted him one night and challenged him to a fight.¹⁰

At Harvard Business School ... classmates vividly remember Bush as an iconoclast and a character, someone who didn't fit the tailored mold of business students in the nation's premier graduate program. He showed up for class looking like he had just rolled out of bed in the morning, often sat in the back of the room chewing gum or dipping snuff and made it clear to everyone he had no interest in Wall Street. One of my first recollections of him, says classmate Marty Kahn, was sitting in class and hearing the unmistakable sound of someone spitting tobacco. I turned around and there was George sitting in the back of the room in his [National Guard] bomber jacket spitting in a cup. You have to remember this was Harvard Business School. You just didn't see that kind of thing. What Bush wanted to get out of Harvard were some practical business fundamentals. He wanted to do something entrepreneurial, he told his pals, but he wasn't sure what. He mused about running for office but told friends he had to make some money first.¹⁰

After he graduated from Harvard Business School he returned to Texas. George W. Bush started out researching who owned mineral rights. He later traded mineral and royalty interests and invested in drilling prospects. He had started his own oil and gas company by 1978, taking $17,000 from his education trust fund to set up Arbusto Energy.¹³ (GeeDubya says arbusto is the Spanish word for ‘bush’, although Cassell’s Spanish/English Dictionary translates it as ‘shrub’, the source of one of GeeDubya’s nicknames.)¹⁴ Also, G.W. ... campaigned for U.S. Congress in 1978 in a large West Texas district that included his hometown of Midland but was unsuccessful. The company (Arbusto) fell on hard times when oil prices fell. He made several attempts to revive the business, first by changing the company's name and later by merging with other companies. In 1983, Bush’s company was rescued from failure when Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation, a small oil firm owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds, bought it. Bush became chief executive officer (due in large part to the Bush name).¹³

Spectrum and Harken were in negotiations. When the deal eventually came through, Harken would take on all $3 million of Spectrum's crushing debt, absorb its operations, and provide Bush with a valuable infusion of Harken stock and a generous consulting contract.⁴ In the buyout deal, Bush and his partners were given more than $2 million worth of Harken stock for the 180-well operation.¹³ In return, Harken would receive the untapped oil reserves he had failed to profit from, and have Bush on its board at a time when his father was preparing to run for president.⁴ Bush became a director and was hired as a consultant to Harken.¹³

By the spring of 1987, Harken was in need of cash. Jackson Stephens, head of Stephens, Inc., an investment bank in Little Rock, Arkansas arranged for Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) to provide $25 million to Bush’s company in return for a stock interest in Harken. As part of the deal, Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh, a Saudi real estate tycoon and financier, joined Harken's board as a major investor.¹³ One needs to remember that H.W. Bush was the sitting Vice President and the Republican front-runner to be their candidate for President in the 1988 election. Also, there was the connection between the Bush family and Saudi royal family.¹⁵

In 1989, Bush prepared for his move from the oil business to the sports business when he helped assemble a group who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball team from Eddie Chiles. He and Rusty Rose served as managing general partners until Bush was elected Governor of Texas in 1994.¹³ Bush's initial investment was $500,000, which he borrowed using the stock he owned in Harken Energy as collateral. He later brought his total Rangers investment up to $606,302 – or 1.8 percent of the purchase value. For running the team and his role in putting together the deal, Bush was promised an additional 10 percent share when the team was sold – after all other investors received a return. When the group sold the team last year (1998) for $250 million, Bush's share was $14.9 million.¹⁶

A questionable financial transaction occurred in 1990 that ... prompted an SEC probe into whether he had engaged in insider trading.¹⁷ On June 22, 1990, George Jr. (G.W.) sold two-thirds of his Harken stock (at $4 a share) for a cool 200 percent profit.¹⁵ The transaction was to net Bush $835,307, according to the notice of proposed sale, signed and dated June 22, that Bush was required to send to the SEC as a member of Harken's board.¹⁷ The move was well timed. One week after Junior sold his stock; Harken announced a $23.2 million loss in quarterly earnings and Harken stock dropped sharply, losing 60 percent of its value over the next six months.¹³ Prior to his sale of Harken stock on June 15, 1990, lawyers from the firm of Haynes & Boone, which worked for Harken, sent a warning about selling on insider information. The memo to Harken staffers had the subject line Liability for insider trading and short swing profits. (The information was revealed in an SEC memo, which also reported Bush's late filing of insider trading forms on four different occasions.)¹⁹ The SEC opened an investigation on April 5, 1991 into whether G.W. had engaged in insider trading. There is substantial evidence to suggest that Bush knew Harken was in dire straits in The Weeks before he sold the $848,560 of Harken stock, asserted U.S. News & World Report. The magazine noted Harken appointed Junior to a ‘fairness committee’ to study possible economic restructuring of the company. Junior worked closely with financial advisers from Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Company, who concluded only drastic action could save Harken.¹⁸ Bush was a member of the board's audit committee, although it was the executive committee of which Bush was not a member that had access to most of Harken's financial information.¹⁹

The key facts in the Harken case are these: Bush sold more than $800,000 worth of stock in Harken in June 1990, two months before the company reported a far larger quarterly loss than investors had anticipated. Millions more in Harken losses had been concealed by suspect accounting of the sale of its subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, in 1989. The SEC challenged the propriety of this accounting, and in January 1991, seven months after Bush sold his stock, Harken revised its books accordingly, nearly quadrupling the net loss it had reported. A form on which Bush was supposed to report his stock sale wasn't filed until eight months after it was due.²⁰ On Oct. 18, 1993, an SEC memo declared the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and that, at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him.¹⁹ A letter from a top SEC official, associate director for enforcement Bruce A. Hiler, said it must in no way be construed as indicating that the party (G.W.) has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation." How thorough the SEC inquiry was remained unclear.²¹

This memo (Haynes & Boone to Harken staff about insider trading) was turned over by Bush's attorney the day after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that it would not charge Bush with insider trading.²² Even now, questions linger about a 1990 sale of Harken stock by Bush.¹⁷ As President, Bush has refused to authorize the SEC to release its full report on the Harken investigation.²²

I recounted this brief history to keep G.W.’s personality, propensities, early successes, and his integrity in perspective. When one encounters a person who is not only susceptible but has succumbed to additive substances (an addictive personality), how that person presents him or herself and says cannot always be trusted, hence the term façade. Individual accountability didn’t seem to apply to him. G.W. was the poster child of the concept of get along get promoted. Also, his inability to accept responsibility for his actions was most telling. These tendencies also affected his education and how he perceived society. He and those around him needed to recognize these personal tendencies and not allow them to control his policy positions and decisions. The people G.W. selected to support him either didn’t want to oppose him or used his flaws to their advantage. He succeeded in spite of his flawed personality. G.W.’s flawed personality was neither good nor bad, it just was. He either refused to believe it affected him or he didn’t care. When one really looked at G.W. the person, his experiences and actions portrayed his character.

A major concern with his character was his simplistic view of issues. He simplified issues into black or white concepts. A concept was either totally good or totally bad. This perspective could be attributed to his personality and his lack of motivation to learn from his educational opportunities. The following was a perfect example. In early April 1986, Bush ran into Al Hunt, then the Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau chief, at a Mexican restaurant in Dallas, where Hunt was dining with his wife, Judy Woodruff, and their 4-year-old son. The April edition of Washingtonian magazine had come out featuring 16 pundits predicting who would lead the 1988 GOP ticket. Hunt had predicted Jack Kemp over Vice President Bush. An opinion based upon his experience and analysis of the presidential race not an excoriation of George H. W. Bush. Instead of discussing his opinion, G.W. verbally attacked Al Hunt. Hunt said Bush (G.W.) approached the table and began cursing at him in front of his child. Hunt said there was no doubt that Bush had been drinking heavily. You [expletive] son of a bitch, Hunt quotes Bush as saying. I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this."⁴ G.W. believed that any negative or less than positive coverage of his family was a personal attack.

In the above case, his arrogance and temper were displayed in a public outburst. His reaction also touched on the conflict between him and his father. He rebelled against his father the person and his discipline yet he went over the top in defending his image. Even though he constantly chaffed at this father’s influence in his life, he often overcame his personal struggle to accept it. Whenever he could or needed to, he used his father’s financial and political influence to give him a ‘leg up.’

When given the opportunity during his father’s re-election campaign he showed a proclivity for learning about the underbelly of politics from his father and his friends. Once he showed this proclivity, he decided to make politics his next wildcat adventure. He covered his undisciplined laid back good ole’ boy drinking buddy image when he decided to run for Governor of Texas. One aspect of G.W.’s background and wayward life that should have been examined more closely was his ability to really understand working Americans. Since he was unable to relate, he portrayed himself as an ‘ah shucks’ Texan which could on carry him so far. With his father’s influence, he had substantial political and big business connections as a base. Yet, his name, his family’s money, and political connections brought him unprecedented support for such an insouciant, undisciplined, inexperienced, stubborn, brash person. When he entered the public sector, his father and friends were not able to cover his flaws.

Many who knew G.W. personally said he had the best intentions for the country and its citizens. Yet, there was no in-between and there were no gray areas, therefore, no room for other ideas or constructive criticism. In line with that characteristic, G.W. embraced ultra-conservatism. He, as an unprincipled, but stubborn silver-spoon-fed baby boomer, was the perfect candidate for this. He claimed to be a ‘born again Christian,’ making him the perfect candidate to spread their monetary and social agendas. Since he would not listen or consider other perspectives or input from anyone not ultra-conservative, he became symbolic with their ideals. He embraced the Republican ultra-conservative hard line and the neo-conservative concept of global domination. In return, the reactionary ultra-conservatives embraced him. It was one thing to advocate for a minority it was another to force the views of such a minority onto the lives of the majority. The distortion of facts on which many ultra conservative talk show hosts thrived was also what, unfortunately, G.W.’s administration thrived. He didn’t consider a small alteration of facts or the truth, lying or immoral. Instead of coming clean he preferred to defer and obfuscate facts and generally deceive the public. Misleading one’s true intentions with rhetoric was classic deception. It was tantamount to lying and in every respect immoral, not very Christian. He left as governor of Texas before his poison droppings began to smell throughout the state. However, before that happened, he provided a dose to the entire country as President. G.W. and his administration became the epitome of what he railed against in the Clinton administration; degradation of societal morals, wasted opportunities, secretiveness, and deception of the public trust.

The Bush dynasty and the Bush name provided G.W. with ample educational, business, and political opportunities. As he left after his two terms he still didn’t have any concept about the hardships experienced by the vast majority of American citizens. Here was a person who had been at best a partying self-destructive good ole’ boy, a failure in multiple business adventures, involved in a questionable stock transaction for which he avoided prosecution, and yet was brought through all these youthful indiscretions by his family, their connections, and some of his business partners. Most other men would not have survived such self-destructive behaviors let alone multiple misadventures and business failures. When G.W. was in the private sector it was easier to hide his mistakes. Long before he besmirched the presidency, he failed in business dealings. His wildcatting entrepreneurships provided a lot of dust. People close to him always saved him from himself. G.W. never experienced the full weight of his failures. Because of that, he never learned the consequences for his vapid actions. From the National Guard, to Arbusto, to Spectrum, to Harken Energy, to the Texas Rangers he stumbled, charmed, and sold promises while receiving substantial financial rewards. Yet, he survived all of these to enter politics and be elected. Even though he owed his charmed life and many thanks to his incredible connections he continued to put himself out there, to wildcat. Putting it into another context as an anonymous saying goes, A pound of pluck is worth a ton of luck. What did he have to lose?

G.W.’s character, as evidenced by the way he managed his adult life and his years in public office, never reached the level of that needed for president. He understood give and take as I take, you give not the concept of differing opinions. This was why it was difficult for anyone with a view other than his to deal with him. He had no sense of humility, was inconsiderate, attacked any view not in agreement, shunted any avenue for compromise, and valued loyalty and power over everything else. It was the major reason why he was a poor role model as President of the United States.

CHARACTER OF LEADERSHIP

Sometimes, a leader emerges from among equals, a man whose natural charisma, stability, and sense of purpose make everyone turn to him. There’s something special there, and everybody recognizes it, even if no one can put a finger on it.²³ For one to garner respect one has to lead by moral, ethical, and spiritual force. These come not only from a moral and ethical upbringing but by applying such concepts in everyday life.

The path chosen by one in a position to lead is based upon their beliefs and experiences. A leader needs to be determined and plan in order to achieve an ultimate goal. A good leader expends considerable effort making plans on how to achieve the goal. Then, the leader inspires others to assist in the implementation and processes necessary.

A person who wants to become president of the United States of America should be a leader with a vision. A leader’s vision should be based in reality and be in the ‘public good.’ A forthright person who wants to be president should know that the country’s goals are security, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness for all American citizens. A vision of these goals and where he/she would like to lead the country is only a sign of a leader. A vision of leadership is not leadership. A true leader has to have an understanding of the capabilities of achieving the vision and be a knowledgeable force to perpetuate the process. True leaders lead by their presence when interacting with others, their articulation of their position when communicating, their ability to cooperate and compromise, their decisiveness when making a needed choice, and their comprehension of the probable consequences of the choices and decisions they ultimately make. As one could note, most of our presidents have fallen short in one or more aspect.

Another character trait needed for the presidency is the ability to learn from errors. Throughout his youthful adulthood, G.W. never showed an inclination that he had learned any lesson from his errant ways. Also, when one projected a know-it-all image with a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude, it did not show any willingness to learn and change as needed, i.e. personal growth. Courage to stay strong for an action is not the same as stubbornness. Even after evaluating innumerable circumstances and speeches, it was still difficult to discern whether or not he actually had a strong moral compass. In his speeches to pander to the ultra-conservative base, he used the correct words to reassure them. But, when one examined his undisciplined self control and volatile aspects of his personal life, he ‘talked the talk’ but he didn’t ‘walk the walk.’

One of the main concerns about the G.W.’s presidency was his lack of understanding or inability to comprehend the whole picture. As a leader, it is one thing to announce what you want; it’s another to understand how to proceed to get it done. Understanding the consequences of the process and the probable results is the essence of good leadership. A good leader understands scientific or engineering breakthroughs that need to occur in order to achieve the goal. A leader has a plan for financing, not only the planning state, but the start up, implementation, and continuation phases. A leader also knows what are the long-term goals and their advantages. If there are unexpected problems outside the original plans, a leader takes on this additional burden and addresses it with contingency planning. In government, there is a bureaucracy in place to provide the process. All a president needs to do is to provide leadership and promote policies that positively impact the greatest number of people in our society. Oh, by the way, political expediency is only a short-term goal usually with many unintended consequences.

PHILOSOPHY AND BELIEFS

The Preamble to our Constitution reads to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. It would be quite difficult to state it more precisely than our forefathers. I want to point out that our Constitution was set up for the welfare of all citizens to be able to enjoy the opportunities and rights to get ahead not only for the present generation but also for future generations. It was written to encourage and empower the common man not nobility determined by rank, birth, religion, or income. The Constitution did not speak of rights for corporations but for individuals.

J. F. Kennedy said during his inauguration in January 1961, that the United States was at the beginning of a new generation. Where we could make health care available to everyone, educate our youth, preserve the environment and still be a rich nation. So let us begin anew    remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do    for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.²⁴

We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom    symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning    signifying renewal, as well as change. Now the trumpet summons us again    not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are    but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation    a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.²⁴

During the short time he was president JFK embodied his belief in the ability of this nation to achieve all of these goals at the same time. Unfortunately, for him personally and for the nation for decades to come, too many in the old school did not want this change. This change would upset the balance of power. It would give too much power to those with ideas. It would remove too much power from those who only had money and connections. Presidents Johnson and Nixon were of the old school and only paid lip service to ideals championed by JFK. President Jimmy Carter had similar ideals, and as president, attempted to make progress. Nevertheless, without the support in Washington, his charm and down-home appeal were undermined by the old guard. The old guard then held sway for the next twelve years under Reagan and George Bush. After twelve years of ‘trickle down’ economics that did not work and competition from a slick politician, the old guard lost the White House to Bill Clinton. We then received the ‘Contract with America’ from the Newt Gingrich led House of Representatives. Due to the underhanded and illegal dealings that surfaced regarding that GOP led Congress our country reeled from that hang-over for years.

When he became president, G.W. philosophically and morally reverted to the 1950’s smoked filled backrooms where a small cadre determined what was to be done. Where everything was secret and wasn’t introduced publicly until it was a done deal. The hippies in the 1960's removed the veil from those back room politics. (Oh, that’s right! G.W. remained aloft to the 60’s protests immersing himself in frat parties; another educational opportunity blown!) So, instead of being part of the open, informative generation, he opposed them and their achievements to make our government more open by making information readily available. The average citizen wanted a government where ideas and plans were discussed in the open. G.W. and his policies struggled because he kept his plans and processes secret. No wonder he was out of touch with mainstream America.

Under G.W. if you were not born into a powerful family with a certain religious background and did not have millions of dollars, you were insignificant. If you were not extremely rich, your thoughts and concerns were not relevant to the success of the nation. G.W. espoused a pro-business philosophy believing that what was good for business was good for everyone in the country. George W. Bush didn’t invent any of this. His role is to pretty much embody it. He is what people mean when they speak of crony capitalism. His administration was what we mean by the cliché setting the fox to guard the hen coop. (Raccoons are actually far more dangerous to chickens — take our word for it.) Bush is not motivated by greed — he honestly believes government should be an adjunct of corporate America and that we'll all be better off if it is. Thus his role has been to build upon, to extend, to exaggerate, to further privatize, to cheerlead for, to evangelize about all that the free-marketeers have been preaching over the years.¹⁴

George Walker Bush campaigned on the promise to cut taxes. The premise was, It’s your money. The government shouldn’t be spending it. It’s yours. You should have it. This was in reference to a projected surplus and the presumption that the surpluses would continue for the foreseeable future. If we maintained the course set by the Clinton administration, we could have looked forward to several years of surpluses. If the surpluses continued, it would mean that we would have been able to further pay down the national debt (which stood at $5.7 trillion) and solidify the Social Security trust fund and Medicare. The problem with G.W.’s campaign promise was that it was disingenuous. He promised to cut taxes but left out that they would only be effective for the richest 2% of the population.²⁵

Financially, G.W. re-initiated the failed Reagan policy of ‘trickle down’ economics to increase production. G.W. forgot the term ‘Voodoo Economics’ his father so euphemistically used. (See more about the economy in another chapter.) ‘Trickle down’ economics did not work for twelve years under Reagan and Bush the Elder. The mantra of ‘trickle down’ was that by providing more money to citizens through tax breaks they could increase their charitable contributions reducing the need for government-sponsored social services. Counter to his concept of limited social government G.W. had a different concept about military spending. After 9/11, he spent as he wanted on the military.

G.W.’s tenure began with decreasing debt and forecasts of excess tax revenues. Instead of building up this potential excess and paying back the Social Security Fund for billions removed for other purposes, G.W. cut taxes, mainly for the wealthiest 2% of the population. People forgot that under President Reagan we had extended periods of very high interest rates and inflation around 13%. However, under both presidents, the rich became richer, the poor remained very poor, and social services suffered from lack of funding. As the government went further into debt, the value of the dollar decreased significantly increasing the costs of international trade in a world economy. The projected potential excess income turned into record deficits. Finally, in the fall of 2006, of course just before midterm elections, the investment in our economy was thriving with record stock closings. G.W. on campaign stomps emphasized that the national debt was only 250 billion nicely forgetting the 177 billion removed from the Social Security Trust Fund and the extra billions to fund his war in Iraq.²⁶

We all now know the results of G.W.’s economics. We had a collapsed housing market, a devalued dollar, lost pension funds, bailouts of financial institutions, and a modern depression. We had massive debts, we continued to exhaust the Social Security Trust Fund, we were bogged down in a protracted expensive occupation in Iraq, social services were no longer receiving sufficient funds to serve our populace, and we had reversed thirty years of advances toward environmentally friendly industrial production. During the Clinton years, the number of people considered poor decreased. Through G.W.’s administration the number of people considered poor, increased. Instead of increasing jobs, we had massive unemployment during his last months in office that lasted well into President Obama’s first term.

Another one of his campaign façades was I am a compassionate conservative. The biggest alternate truth provided by G.W. as part of his campaign mantra. I was not sure what was meant by that term ‘compassionate conservative.’ Compassionate means a person is considerate of his fellow man and cares what happens to them. Conservative means a person who is careful about what they do, contemplative about change, and careful about financial issues. That explained being compassionate and being conservative.

However, this following definition probably better fits G.W. A neo-conservative definition of compassionate conservative is the principles of conservatism lead to a more prosperous and stable society, which is inherently compassionate towards others. Therefore, communities help their own as neighbors rather than depend on national efforts which are considered to have less understanding of local issues. It is also argued that conservatives aim for a society that helps people to help themselves, thereby avoiding reliance on the government for their needs.²⁷, ²⁸ It was a perfect example of a Republican twist to a simple definition. No wonder there was such a disconnect between the public’s perception and G.W.’s use of the term. The neo-conservative concept had already been proven not be functional in our democratic society.

If one looked at the first definition, G.W. exhibited neither compassion nor a conservative perspective. It became obvious that he embraced the neo-conservative definition. The problem was he had no concept how to turn this ideal into reality through a logical process. G.W. was ill prepared for the office of the president. He wanted to come off to the public as friendly and for the people, hence the catch phrase ‘compassionate conservative’ that became a nebulous identifier to be interpreted to fit any given situation.

Another of his campaign promises was that he would be an uniter. He campaigned to unite this country under what I’m not sure. I do not know whether his rich upper class upbringing did not allow him to envision what the lower and middle classes experienced or whether he just did not care. I believe it was impossible for G.W. to unite his wealthy privileged class perspectives with theirs. Since he was incapable of comprehending their economic problems, he did not have a clue as to where to begin to direct policies that would be beneficial to them. As he usually did, he confused the implications of wealth versus productivity and controversial versus divisive and their impact on unification. It was difficult to be an uniter when he considered most of the citizens subjects not equals.

One attribute I wish to note was G.W.’s ego. Now, all people who even choose to run for the presidency have a large ego. G.W. was of the impression that he could do as he pleased, do no wrong, and, no matter what, in the end come out smelling like a rose. His concept of the presidency was that of a king that the news and everything else would revolve around him. Undisciplined with an arrogant attitude, he was totally unprepared for the effort required of a president. His background and history did not establish any credibility for working hard at anything. He went into the office thinking that it would be easy to be kept up with the news. He didn’t count on the effort required on his part to be ‘brought up to speed’ on a single issue let alone multiple interconnecting issues. He was not prepared to address the innumerable issues that required his attention and, often times, the basis for a decision. He never worked so hard in his life as he was required as president hence the phrase, It’s hard work. His ad nauseam use of that phrase epitomized his character. G.W. as the poster child of the concept of get along get promoted said, Look at me, I was a C student and I’m President. The unfortunate result was a president promoting mediocrity.

His cavalier attitude to his job as the president was appalling. He was only interested in issues if they supported his personal agenda. What was his personal agenda? Good question. His number one agenda was to get elected as president. His number two agenda was to pay back his constituents, the rich corporate sponsors and his ‘moral’ right wing ultra-conservative base. His number three agenda was to get re-elected. Other than those three, he had no plans for this country. This became evident with the haphazard introduction of proposed laws and presidential orders. He made it up as he went along without a plan on how to govern. His concept of governing was, with the guidance of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, to attack the critics not engage in constructive debate and analyze the critiqued policies and actions. His ego was such that he didn’t believe he needed to be introspective. The result was divisive demagoguery.

To go along with his ego, a main component of his way of looking at life, philosophy if you wish, was ‘wildcatting.’ Wildcatting is speculative oil drilling on land not known to be productive, something he did after college with Arbusto. As one recalls he was unsuccessful as a wildcatter. However, that was a thrilling experience for him and became part of his being. Because of this concept, many of his actions as president were geared toward wildcatting or increased risk for all citizens not taking into account that the vast majority of the U.S. population was quite risk aversive. Risk is not conservative. It is the polar opposite.

As president, he applied this thrilling risk philosophy to ‘trickle down’ economics (which had already been proven to be a dry well), to the invasion of Iraq to find WMDs, to his support of decreased investment bank regulations permitting unfettered investment speculation, to his proposal to use Social Security funds to fund individual retirement accounts, and, one of the most cynical proposals, for the use of Health Savings Accounts so that individuals could speculate on their health. The catch here was that when G.W. started out in his business adventures, he was not risking much. The history of his business dealings showed a propensity for riding on the legacy of his name and some luck but very little business acumen. He liked the thrill of presidential power but it was the American citizens assuming the risk. He went into the office with a chip on his shoulder about how his father had been treated. In essence, he wanted revenge on the American public. Because of his inadequacies and risky policies as president, he succeeded.

Due to his educational shortcomings, his personal philosophies, and his beliefs about how government should function, G.W. failed as did President James Polk. Polk failed to understand the cost to his presidency, and to the nation, of governing in a manner that was increasingly seen as championing the priorities of one interest, Southern slaveholders. The charge wasn't entirely fair, but the impatient Polk never recognized the value of concessions that could broaden consensus. When Polk stepped down, Silbey writes, he left behind ominous cracks in the political and social institutions that had encouraged national unity.²⁹

Over four tumultuous years, he pursued an ambitious, highly partisan agenda that offered little to those who had voted against him. Strong on vision but weak on building consensus, Polk advanced his goals more than seemed possible in a closely divided country. But Polk's tactics deepened the nation's divisions and fanned the flames that later exploded into the Civil War.²⁹

Part of Lincoln's genius, as one close advisor wrote, was his understanding that in the pursuit of national unity, it was the task of the president to mollify and moderate the country's fractious interests and diverse viewpoints. That is one reason Lincoln is revered and Polk, for all his ferocious accomplishments, is barely remembered. Lincoln voted for a Whig resolution that charged the president with unnecessarily and unconstitutionally initiating the war. To accept Polk's justifications, Lincoln later complained, would be to allow the president to invade a neighboring nation whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary."²⁹ This should have been just a history lesson for G.W. His failure to read and understand history put his presidency on the same level as President Polk’s.

Judeo-Christian Ethics

Part of being ‘moral’ is fighting the ‘good fight’ when the odds are against one. Too often the decision is made to not fight, to save energy, good will, ‘chips’, etc. for another time when the odds are better or an outcome is more likely. The problem with that action in the public sector is that it is a very cynical perception of what we are capable of as a people and what is expected of those in the public bureaucracy. According to the Gospel, Jesus Christ said, A good Sheppard lays down his life for his flock. In today’s terms for significance as a leader, it can be translated as a willingness to put one’s life on the line for his constituents. A true Christian cares about others (compassion) and their lot in life. A ‘born again Christian’ usually is willing to overcompensate due to past sins. G.W. professed to be a ‘born again Christian,’ yet, he did not live his professed intent as a conservative with compassion. His creed was avarice and power. Mouthing words of compassion at opportunities for political advantage were not the same as being compassionate and taking compassionate actions. G.W.’s words, his voice, his emotions of empathy were displayed in his great speech after 9/11. However, when it came to filming flag draped coffins representing the deaths of our military men and women coming home from Iraq, he was cold and callused. Then on days of remembrance, Memorial Day and the anniversaries of 9/11, compassion was not in evidence, just political opportunism. On many occasions, the leader of a compassionate nation must be compassionate. Often, G.W was incapable of publicly displaying that compassion.

His lack of compassion was most evident in his policies affecting average working Americans, tax breaks for the richest, Medicare reform, class action lawsuits, his push to make Social Security a market tool, and his push to reform requirements for pension funding that pulled the rug out from under thousands of retirees. G.W. was truly an ultra conservative pro-business shill. Compassion for the long-term welfare and fate of the general public was not evident.

Of note here is that during the first six years of his administration, the President, the very conservative right controlled the majority of the governorships, the House of Representative, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the media. It meant there were NO ‘checks and balances’ to the reactionary right wing’s agenda. Dissenters in and out of government were targeted by this fraction continually eroding civil discourse that challenged decisions made in our names. These actions were against the very principles our founding fathers wanted to foster in creating this republic.

Christian values were the philosophy behind the intent of our Constitution and government. But, the Christian religion was not included in the Constitution and, religion in general, was excluded from government and the test for any position in the government. However, George W. Bush invoked religion as one of his pillars. In many ways it appeared G.W. was trying to emulate Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine posted decrees in favor of believers of Christianity. If one was paying attention, and most Americans’ weren’t, it was quite evident from his first week in office G.W. was going to pay back the religious supporters and ultra-conservative right with the introduction of his Faith Based Initiative. G.W.’s decisions to allow faith based charter schools and faith based social services to receive federal funds were two such examples. Religion is a personal decision and a person’s concept and acceptance of the influence of religion determines one’s character. But, impressing one’s religious moral values on others was the issue. The United States was formed from a basis of Christianity but the founding fathers wanted to make sure it was not a foundation for the government or a deterrent for government service.

The Constitution, Article VI Clause 3 reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Our Constitution was specifically written to block religious decrees. Article VI notes there will be no religious test for any public office or public entity. The first amendment notes that Congress cannot pass ANY LAW respecting an establishment of religion. The passage of his faith based initiative was in direct opposition to the words and intent of our Constitution.

Professing faith was, usually, beneficial for a president. By a 3 to 1 margin, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center, registered voters believe it is important that the president have strong religious beliefs. So when Mr. Bush speaks in the tongue of religion, he is speaking to a public that wants reassurance that he is animated at least in part by religion.³⁰

Mark Gerson, Mr. Bush's speech writer and, like the President, a religious conservative, identifies four occasions when religion infuses the President's rhetoric: moments of mourning that require comfort; events calling for references to the historic influence of faith; speeches on the President's commitment to faith    based solutions for social crises, and remarks that include literary allusions to hymns and Scripture. Much of this rhetoric gives comfort to the listener, even those who do not fully recognize the spiritual references that are often embedded in the President's speeches. But it prompts discomfort in many of the President's critics and skeptics.³⁰ Was it any small wonder that G.W. appealed to the religious conservatives? He definitely presented himself as a spiritual person but that did not make his actions spiritual, Christian, or generous. To be moral, one must live their spirituality. Compassion is the basis of all morality.    Arthur Schopenhauer, German Philosopher

Ex-president Jimmy Carter was a very devout Christian and whom I would almost consider a pious person. In his own terms, he was a born again evangelical Christian. He was a southern governor who went to the White House after a scandalous Republican administration. He did not try to change the essence of the American soul. He accepted his religious foundation but did not attempt to stamp his faith onto the faces of each and every American citizen.³¹

G.W. was quite the opposite. His actions reflected that of a religious fundamentalist including moral superiority. He trumpeted his ‘conversion’ and employed every opportunity to inject ‘his faith’ and religion into our government. It did not belong in our government. According to Jimmy Carter the definition of a fundamentalist is one who exudes superiority over those who do not belong to their specific faith, takes a position of superiority (such as white male dominance and subservient females), and who thinks they are always right, with no need to ever admit mistakes.³¹ Other terms used to describe a religious fundamentalist are contemptuous and arrogance. They evaluate everything in terms of black and white. It is virtually impossible for a fundamentalist to come to a compromise with any other position. Now, which better described G.W.?

For a person to go through an epiphany, where they undergo a conversion from an inappropriate, self-centered, manipulative slacker to a moral, generous, and upstanding person, is extremely rare. There were a few ministries who claimed a person would receive redemption as a ‘born again Christian’ when all they did was help them feel better about themselves while raking in donations. To be a truly ‘born again Christian’ one must do some extensive soul searching and then become productive and tolerant of and generous to others with a modicum of noblesse oblige.

G.W.’s conversion to a ‘born again Christian’ appeared to be more of convenience than sincerity. He referred to himself as one but his concept of seeking redemption did not mean he developed the characteristics in the true Judeo-Christian tradition. He was the same good ole’ boy with a coat of sugar (i.e. religious trappings of morality) applied to make him look appealing. There were ample reports of his continuing to drink and be an outrageous good ole’ boy into the 1990's. Being moral and generous would not be aptly applied to G.W. He did not appear to be tolerant and accepting of others. He embraced exclusion instead of reflection and inclusion. ‘You’re either one of us or you’re against us.’ That was hardly a Christian philosophy of acceptance and generosity.

G.W.’s way to deal with competition, no matter whether it was running for office or a policy issue, was character assassination. When it came to opposition, G.W.’s team, in particular Karl Rove, intentionally distorted opponents’ positions and records. It was not difficult to identify the distortions but it was extremely difficult to reverse their impact.

One only had to look at the character assassination of Senator McCain and Senator Kerry for their war records in Viet Nam to know that there was