Looking Back

National Review Online
Tuesday, January 20, 2009

After September 11, George W. Bush rightly conceived of his as a war presidency. We are now in a stronger position vis-à-vis our enemies than we were when he took office. Then they were gathering force. Now they are on the run. No further attacks on our soil have been made. We cannot say for sure whether we would have been as safe under another president, and we can point to Bush policies that contributed to our safety.

Bush’s decision to oust the Baathist regime in Iraq was the most controversial of his tenure and is now the most widely condemned. But Iraq now has a fighting chance to become a stable country that poses no threat to its neighbors or to us, and even an ally. If that happy prospect materializes, Bush will deserve credit for a major strategic advance. The cost has been dear: dearer than it would have been if Bush had changed his strategy in Iraq earlier, and that consideration too must be weighed in judging his record. He has nonetheless shown far better judgment and character than a political establishment that largely approved the initial invasion of Iraq and then sought to abandon it to terrorists.

Bush’s other foreign accomplishments include the disarming of Libya and the substantial strengthening of ties with India. Afghanistan is not as safe a haven for terrorists as it was at the start of Bush’s presidency, although we have much work left to do there and in Pakistan. Our capacity to defend ourselves from missiles has grown, and our military is—belatedly—growing. On the negative side of the ledger, Bush leaves unfinished and messy business in Iran and North Korea. China has grown richer without growing more pacific. Russia has backslid, as has Latin America.

We often disagreed with Bush on domestic policy, opposing him on education, immigration, spending, and much else. Even where we agreed on policy, we sometimes disagreed on strategy, as on Social Security. He leaves behind a government that has, since 2000, grown larger without being much reformed. He also leaves behind a tax code that is significantly more conducive to long-term growth than the one he found—if, that is, his most important tax cuts stay for the long term (see previous sentence).

Other than tax cuts, Bush’s chief contribution to the economy has come from blocking bad policies such as energy rationing. His administration pursued a short-sighted and inflationary weak-dollar policy. Bush recognized some of the danger that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed to the economy but failed to act forcefully enough; he led both parties in encouraging the credit-unworthy to become “homeowners,” with disastrous results.

Bush’s judicial appointments were stellar. John Roberts and Samuel Alito have already done a lot of good at the Supreme Court, and we hope they will continue to do so for decades. Bush at least ties with Ronald Reagan as the modern president most committed to the sanctity of human life—and on stem cells Bush faced more political pressure than Reagan ever did.

Liberals, including historians who ought to know better, have said that Bush might be the country’s worst president ever. That judgment reflects the partisan hysteria that gripped liberals throughout the Bush years. We would place him in the middle ranks of American presidents. It is a pity he did not do better; we are about to do worse.