Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

September 29, 2008

Ideological Handbook Offers No Guidance, So Bush Chooses Presidential Leadership

Much to the dismay of ideological purists everywhere, governing is not achieved by following an ideological handbook. This is why every president, at one time or another, upsets his political base. It is why Capitol Hill Republicans just spent several days staging a revolt against George W. Bush, who does not have the luxury of a job description that requires him to do nothing but talk.

To govern is to deal with the circumstances that present themselves, and to make choices. Bush is not blind to the fact that the federal buyout of $700 billion worth of troubled mortgage securities is contrary to free-market principles. In his address to the nation on Wednesday evening, he said so. And he doesn’t like it.

But presidents have to think about more than their rating from the American Conservative Union. They have to protect the country. And the best presidents, recognizing the most sensible option given the circumstances, make the call and stick to their guns even when their own party will go ballistic, the opposition will give them no credit and the press will howl like hyenas.

That’s what Bush is doing.

Despite the almost universal denunciations, Bush made a very compelling case on Wednesday for his recommended course of action. Simply put, no one likes the idea of bailing out huge financial institutions that made bad assumptions about the long-term value of mortgage securities. The free-marketeer in him would prefer to simply let them go out of business.

But the president in him can’t do that. If he did, the ability of individuals and all-size businesses to borrow money would be jeopardized, and that could send the economy into a tailspin the likes of which we have not seen for a very long time. The president of the United States simply cannot let that happen.

It may well be that we rely too much on credit to run our economy, and that individuals and businesses (not to mention the federal government) should learn to start operating more on a cash basis than relying on credit. Perhaps the current financial mess will be a good motivator for all of us to move in that direction. That would be a good thing.

It would also be a good thing if financial institutions were not pressured by the federal government – through well-meaning but ill-conceived notions like the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) – to make home loans to people who can’t pay them back. Perhaps today’s problems will spur changes there as well.

But today’s president has to deal with today’s facts. Faced with a choice between putting taxpayer dollars at risk over the long-term, or standing by while the entire economy teeters on the brink of collapse, Bush cannot refuse to act because it offends his conservative sensibilities.

In one of the most mind-bogglingly vacuous pieces ever written – an opinion piece disguised as “analysis” – Terence Hunt of the Associated Press roasted Bush the morning after his address for explaining the origins of the problem without blaming anyone. Or, more to the point, Hunt was upset because Bush did not blame Bush.

Had Bush wanted to go in this direction, he could have assigned no shortage of blame. He could have pointed out that his administration tried to reform the CRA to increase regulatory oversight in 2003, fearing the very problems that have now come to pass, and that Democratic opposition killed the measure. But in a move whose meaning is apparently lost on White House correspondent Hunt, Bush chose to be presidential. An address to the nation concerning a national crisis is not the time to engage in partisan recrimination, and while this is apparently too high-minded a notion for Terence Hunt to understand, at least there is one man in Washington who still does.

If the financial crisis and the rescue action it necessitates do not spur necessary reforms, that will be a shame and major failure of political leadership. But first thing’s first. The federal government has no choice but to move in and prevent the collapse of financial markets. Letting moronic bankers go down with the ship would be fine except for the fact that it would take the rest of the country down with them. Anyone who thinks this is merely the bailout of a bunch of rich guys doesn’t understand the scope of the problem.

And for prospective future presidents Barack Obama and John McCain, Bush has just provided an object lesson, should they choose to heed it, as to why being president is about more than adherence to ideology. Once in office, one of them will be faced with choices that seem impossible, with options that run from bad to worse. Once he chooses, no one will like it, and he will get politically mauled. Too bad. That’s why the presidency is a tough job, and why you might end up with a 30 percent approval rating.

Eight years as president have taught Bush this lesson well, but it should also be said that he came to the job with the character necessary to accept taking the heat when he had to. Whether America realizes it or not – and I don’t think it does – it will miss these qualities when Bush is no longer our president.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

This is Column # DC210. Request permission to publish here.