Mr. Bush and His "Legacy"

A lot of talk has gone on in the media about Mr. Bush's legacy. In fact, The New York Times recently had a very fascinating article about how the Republicans have to grapple with this legacy when it comes to the 2008 elections. The item put it bluntly that with no appointed successor from the current President of the United States, the Republicans have to deal with the increasing unpopularity of the war as well as their stance against the current Administration's policies:

On the Hill, meanwhile, even those who did support the president’s plan in Iraq offered less than the hearty endorsements of the troop surge. Some, like Mr. Warner, said they needed more information before they committed to any increase. At an Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday, Mr. Warner asked the Pentagon to provide results of the war game analyses it has done to evaluate the results of adding more troops.

In the House, as fierce a partisan as Representative Jack Kingston said he was not ready to lend full support, but looked forward to hearings on the plan.

Other Republicans supported the president but emphasized that the commitment in Iraq must not be open-ended — a Democratic refrain. And they argued for the need for benchmarks to evaluate the success of the increase, all of which leaves room for them to peel away from the president if the war does not show more success soon.

Heading toward 2008, Republicans are no longer expecting the kind of party discipline on the war that they expected in 2006. Instead, party leaders say members must speak their consciences.

To the most cynical, it might seem that the rats are trying to jump from the sinking ship. Believe it or not, GOP candidates will have to make a decision: to either save themselves or to continue in blind allegiance to the current administration despite the widespread criticism from America's foreign policy. Strangely enough, the article mentions something that is central to this decision: the fact that they might have to find their consciences in order to survive politically.

When Mr. Bush and his policies were bandied about in the press and in his speeches, there was no question of whether his colleagues would have a conscience or not. Especially before the November 2006 elections, empathy seemed miles away when it came to questions regarding America's participation in Iraq. Despite pertinent questions about the President's policies overseas, they staunchly stood behind their leader without question. It seemed at times that their denial of the wrongs committed during the "occupation" seemed rather stifling.

The shoe had to drop when the scandals started to seep over the surface. As if the problems of former Representative Tom Delay wasn't enough, the Foley and Abramoff scandals were the tip of the iceberg. By November 2006, these stories along with the realisation of the increasing casualties of war had brought about a sense of disgust--along with sentiment overseas.

Talk about "cutting and running". By all indications of this article, it seems that "cutting and running" is precisely what GOP candidates are doing to ensure their own political survival.

And survival is what exactly what they are focusing on when considering the endeavors of Mr. Bush and his stance toward Iraq.

They say politics is a fickle business. When popularity of a party or a policy sweeps the citizenry, the national leaders embrace it with all their fervor. And then, when bottom falls out, those astute enough to see the winds of change distance themselves enough to stay out of the fray. To make a long story short, siding with the President right now is a tricky business due to the fact that the public has gotten wind of the ineptitude and the sheer arrogance when dealing with national and international policy. It is to the point that no matter how much propaganda is being pushed toward nationalism and supporting the troops, not even blindness will turn away the criticism that has erupted over the troubled policies that Mr. Bush has embraced.

This is a time of reckoning for both the Dems and the GOP. For the GOP, they have to embark upon their own soul searching efforts in order to stay buoyant in rocky political times. The Dems have to see this fact and use it to their own advantage. Not only do they have to stay faithful to their "First 100 hours" policy (of which they have made good on), but also they have to use this time to introduce civility and a search for the truth to satiate five years of inquiries posed by those who have scrutinized the actions of the current Administration.

All in all, yes, Mr. Bush has to be very concerned about how historians will treat him. But, one might suppose that his so-called "legacy" might be out of his hands if his own party begins to question his actions.