Changing of the Guard

Well my friends, it's all over. The peaceful transition of power has occurred. The sycophantic masses over at MSNBC are skipping and clucking at Bush's departure, the melody on the tips of their tongues, "Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead." The two million people lining the Mall reflect the historic importance of the occasion. I speak, of course, of the fact that newly-minted President Obama is a south-paw. In fact, he is the fifth in the last 7 Presidents to be left-handed.

But seriously, this is a time for hope, and also a time for us to reflect on the last eight years that have comprised Bush's time in office. Opponents will no doubt have already posted their scathing online indictments; apologists will be spinning the faux-pas and turning our attention to the positive achievements; and fewer still will be praising Bush as a hero and father to the nation (Stephen Colbert characteristically asks his guests, "Bush: great President, or the greatest President?") But unless you play a character on TV, you most likely fall into the two former categories: scathing criticisms, or optimistic spinning.

For the spinners out there, there's not much for me to say. You probably feel he spent money like a drunken sailor, but are otherwise happy that he 'kept you safe.'

For the critics out there, whose numbers grow larger the further outside the US borders one goes, I have only this to say: beware the knee-jerk. A while ago, Vanity Fair contributor Christopher Hitchens, rebuked the audience of Bill Maher's talk show for their idiosyncratic calls of "Bush is an idiot." And while I disagree with the thrust of what Hitchens was saying (more on that later*), I applaud him for taking an unpopular position, namely, defending the intellectual integrity of George W. Bush.

I am an avowed Bush critic. I could talk at length about the man's failings as a President which, in my opinion, are legion. Despite branding himself as a compassionate conservative and trying to model himself as a Reaganite, many of his policies are anathema to the standards of the GOP. And plunging the country into war (at least with Iraq), then stripping back civil rights under the pretext of 'protecting us,' did not make him any friends in the left either.

But let me use this opportunity of the transition of power to ask us to be rigorous and not lazy in our criticisms of our public leaders. Let our criticisms be solid and well-founded; etched in the acid of research and known fact. It is but a lazy man who pokes fun at the icon of the Texan cowboy clearing brush and squinting into the cameras. Casual readers of this blog will note that I have, on more than one occasion, been lazy. It's a product of late-night blogs written in the heat of anger, without the insight of editorial reflection.

There is no shortage of legitimate criticisms for Bush. I'm sure there will be no shortage of criticisms for Obama. But let them be legitimate. Let us not descend into cartoonish depictions of these leaders. Such renderings take the focus away from the valid criticisms of these leaders, and will not likely evolve into a thoughtful debate.


*The Bush-as-idiot argument is frequent, and is frequently discounted by many who throw out counter-arguments like, "how many ivy-league degrees do YOU have?" Such questions are valid, but I think we should remember that Bush is being measured against other presidents in history and not the average Joe-the-Plumber. And while he may not fall in with the bottom of the pack (Buchana, Johnson), his frequent malaproprisms do cast him in a dim light compared to the glare of the magnificent brilliance of some presidents.