Mike Hansen Hansen is a political
science and history student. Sooner or later, you will succumb to
his views. Send your objections to [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Mike Hansen
Please, George, don’t screw up when it counts most!”
Were you thinking the same thing I was on Sept. 11, when the image
of our president popped up on TV, about to address the nation? If
you were, who could blame you?
Armed with an impressive flair for defacing the English language
(think: subliminabable) and a foreign policy record, for better or
for worse, of making all the right decisions to piss off the rest
of the world, Americans had good reason to question the capability
of our president to rise to the occasion. Could this Austin Powers
president of ours ever be the James Bond that we needed to fight
Dr. Evil?
As shocking as it may seem to some, George W. Bush has risen to
the occasion stronger than ever, and has shown the world that he is
indeed a resolute, intelligent and skillful leader.
I know, I know. This kind of talk is very hard for some of you
to stomach, especially the majority of you who didn’t vote
for him. But so far he has excelled in his concurrent duties as
commander-in-chief, coalition-builder and morale-booster. This is
reflected in his skyrocketing approval ratings hovering near 90
percent (Newsweek, Sept. 24).
“When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2
million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
It’s going to be decisive.”
The petty nature of the liberal criticism is a testament to
Bush’s leadership skills. Mike Hansen
No, Austin Powers did not utter this declaration. This was pure
James Bond. It encapsulates Bush’s tough but cautious
strategy of first gathering intelligence and developing a detailed
offensive plan before striking hard.
In a sharp 180 degree turn from his John Wayne unilateralist
approach to foreign policy at the beginning of his term, Bush
grasps the importance of fostering international cooperation to
fight the war against terrorism. Remarkably, he has brought
together an unlikely array of nations including Pakistan, the NATO
states, Russia, Uzbekistan and almost all other Muslim countries.
He has even gained the acquiescence of Iran and China.
Remember the helpless deer stunned by headlights we used to see
when Bush spoke in front of the camera?
Now Bambi is nowhere to be seen. Just as encouraging as
Bush’s diplomatic competence is the marked improvement in his
rhetorical skills. He now speaks more often in a natural,
non-scripted manner where his true emotions and language flow
freely. The tough Texan has even broken down into tears on a number
of recent occasions. Bush’s ability to emotionally connect to
the American people is admirably Clintonesque, but his resolve to
take action is reminiscent of Winston Churchill and Franklin D.
Roosevelt. Clinton said, “I feel your pain,” but Bush
feels your pain and is going to do something about it.
Nonetheless, Bush’s actions have not been without
criticism from the left. His use of folksy Texas lingo has drawn
condemnation both at home and abroad:
The New York Times noted his use of the phrase “wanted:
dead or alive,” calling it “unsettling”(New York
Times, Sept. 20).
The Economist called Bush’s description of the
“crusade” on terrorism “downright idiotic”
(The Economist, Sept. 22-28).
Congressman Richard Neal (D-Mass) said the president appeared
“weak and dull” (El PaÃs, Sept. 15).” Others
call his speech undignified.
Don’t you want a president who’s willing to smoke
the Taliban out? These high and mighty liberals would rather see an
intensely scripted president use SAT vocabulary than a president
who uses regular-guy language that relates more to the people.
Perhaps “crusade”, when the origin of the word is
taken into consideration, was not the best choice of terminology to
describe the fight against terrorism. But surely Bush meant to
convey to the American people that the task ahead would be a long
and arduous one, not that we are about to wage a war on Islam. Now,
honestly, when people use the word crusade they are almost never
referring to the religious struggle of the Middle Ages.
Was there anyone running the show on Sept. 11?
The New York Times and other critics characterized Bush’s
late return to the White House as a lack of leadership (El
PaÃs, Sept. 15). This is absurd. The president was actively
commanding the decision-making process that day from his office in
Air Force One.
Bush could not return to the White House immediately after the
attacks because of the serious risk that the president or the White
House was also a target. These critics should consider that a dead
president would have been displayed a true lack of leadership.
The petty nature of the liberal criticism is a testament to
Bush’s leadership skills and to his success in rallying the
American people behind this important cause. Such criticism is
counterproductive and detracts from the solidarity the country
needs in this time of crisis.
The real tests, both for President Bush and for the American
people, lie in the weeks, months and years ahead. President Bush
will face many difficult tasks in the future, such as the decision
to expand the military campaign to other states found to be
harboring terrorism, and the balancing of national security and
personal liberties.
The American people also face the choice of continuing to rally
behind their president to defeat the evils of terrorism, or eroding
this solidarity by splintering off into fractious groups. Criticism
of the government is expected, but let it be justified and
measured.
In the past month, we have seen a new kind of leader in George
W. Bush. For Bush to continue being the kind of leader America
needs, here’s what we should see out of him in the
future:
More James Bond, FDR and Clinton (part of him at least).
Less Austin Powers, John Wayne and definitely no more Bambi.