As a foreign student it would be easy for me to deride George W. Bush as a dangerous and destructive force. I would be tempted to cite his poor international record and apparent disregard for diplomatic protocol as faults that fuel his unpopularity abroad and within liberal America. I could interpret his conservative stance on domestic issues like abortion, stem-cell research and gay marriage as backwards. I could listen to his critics who proclaim him to be a divisive president pandering to a wealthy constituency and looking to consolidate American wealth and dominance. I could see his recent re-election and subsequent inauguration as the beginning of a distressing era in Washington: a time when civil liberties are potentially threatened by the Patriot Act and neo-conservatism defines American foreign policy.
But as a history major, I remind myself that we must always look to place people, especially American presidents, within the context of their times. The fact of the matter is that Bush represents the majority of today's America, whether blue-state liberals want to accept it or not. With his professed mandate he lays claim to being the most accurate gauge of the core beliefs of the American public. Furthermore, he remains popular in the midst of an unpopular war, a fragile economy and the ever-present threat of a repeat terror attack. At this point in time, Bush is the man the majority of Americans trust most and therefore is the man representing America. Whether we like the man or not, we must accept that this is the America that we are living and studying in today.
As Bush embarks on his second term, we must maintain support to issues important to us and resistance to those we oppose. My call to put him in an historical context does not mean that we should surrender our opposition to him because of impending historical forces. Rather, it is a prompt for us to look at and comprehend the big picture, which I suspect is what history majors spend too much of their time doing. This "big picture" is the premise that excluding a nuclear holocaust, time will go on, democracy will survive, and future presidents will be elected. Eventually, Bush will be just another former president, his official duties relegated to attending the opening of other presidents' libraries. But the legacy of his administration in international and domestic affairs will be examined forever, the magnitude of his presidency doubled with a second term.
How future generations of students will study this legacy remains for Mr. Bush to dictate. The events of Sept. 11 were a definitive moment in American history and have subsequently shaped the tone of Bush's administration; as a result it is near guaranteed that his presidency will be amongst the most studied. Bush has created a new military doctrine of pre-emption and developed a global strategy of spreading democracy to bring peace. The fact that Iraq is still struggling with internal violence raises doubts over the feasibility of his plan. Iraq may yet become Bush's Vietnam, and the potential of a colossal failure looms large. As with past presidents, Bush will be remembered for select themes and episodes of his administration: Carter's botched idealism and failures in the Middle East, Reagan's militarism and overt challenge to communism, Bush I's internationalism in leading the first coalition in the Persian Gulf and Clinton's focus on domestic issues.
George W. Bush will be a more significant president than his father. Like Reagan, Bush has consolidated Republican control in the capital and ushered in a new wave of American conservatism. Bush has also answered the events of Sept. 11 in a forceful manner that will ultimately prove appropriate in Afghanistan but questionable in Iraq. Mr. Bush's current stance on domestic issues will also be significant; legislation that conservatives are planning on passing in future months will be vital in setting the tone for societal debate over the coming decades.
For all of Bush's rigid ideologies, he signals the direction that America is taking. People responded to the "moral fiber" he apparently demonstrates and accordingly voted for him, citing moral values as their most important qualifier in choosing a candidate in multiple exit polls. As a leader, the man is both bold and reckless; he has used American supremacy in the name of making the world more peaceful and democratic - whether he succeeds or has been genuine is left for future historians to decide. Only time will tell if George W. Bush will be elevated into history's pantheon or placed into its dustbin.
Paul Lemaistre is sophomore majoring in History.
