One day, it might be interesting to know the vision of which President Bush speaks. Just for reference. It appears he wants to merge our interests as Americans with those of other nations and international organizations. That’s quite a presumption, and one made by our living, former presidents, all of them. However, in contrast and in fact, their sworn duty was to defend our interests as Americans, not to bargain them away. They sold us down the stream of impractical visions.
Both former Presidents Bush would tell you that we could not allow Saddam Hussein to do something or other. We had to go to war against Saddam. Twice. How were/are those events good for Americans? And, while we are at it, let’s have Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us under truth serum: how was the fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his regime good for Americans? That’s just for starters, as we make our case against world government.
But don’t hold your breath Mr. Shapiro. You may be the author of that Bush book.
But first, let’s deal with the fact that the Bush family and their CFR ilk have put us in continuous wars, and they have never described any practical vision with the possibility of getting us out of the war loop. Sorry; that is neither conservative nor Reagan Conservative. How, for example, are we, as Bush says, to pass down our culture to the next generation, when the policies of our living, former presidents, (e.g. big government solutions to everything, open borders multiculturalism and moral relativity, and non-stop regime change wars) have been actively diluting our culture? Diluting one’s culture is not conservative.
Bush says they want to support Madison and the rest. The Monroe doctrine in 1823 made it official U.S. policy and law to thwart European colonialism in the Americas. Now, for reasons BushObamaClinton and their ilk fail to explain, we are supposed to believe that heavy immigration of non-European cultures is somehow a good thing for American citizens. And you deem us nativist/anti-immigrant bigots if we don’t accept your belief. Yet, by U.S. law, European colonialism was and apparently still is a bad thing for Americans.
One man’s bigotry is another man’s principles. And between them is the path to quagmire, the path your leaders couldn’t abandon until exiting country in helicopters from the rooftop of the embassy, after they blew the country to pieces. In America, the 50 years prior to 1823 were about expelling colonial powers from the United States of America, including two wars with England. Most of our founders would have stopped there. But not our anointed globalists. The Vietnamese, the Afghanis and the Koreans know a thing or two about expelling colonial powers. Let’s go fight with them. After 1823 and the Monroe Doctrine, there were U.S. wars to expel colonial powers from the broader Americas. Then the entire 20th century was consumed by wars to prevent that takeover of Europe by Germanics and to prevent the takeover of Asia by the Japanese. But as of today, none of our living, former presidents has tried to prevent the colonization of America by Islam, even though we know, and Islamists say, their intent is to take over completely, aided by a Saudi-funded boom of mosques and imams all around America. Worse than silence by our living, former presidents, they have been helping the Saudis.
The Bush clan, and their CFR ilk, persist in pushing internationalism and globalism, you know, the new world order. For reasons unknown to us, they are unable to adjust their dogmas to the failure of their vision and policies, which is so evident in the European Union today. EU countries and regions within countries are pushing back against the EU bureaucrats. They know the EU vision is impractical. At home in America, we don’t want the third world fear and chaos now rolling into the EU. But you revel in it, another opportunity for power. We don’t want them to bring it here and we don’t want America’s brave young military volunteers to bring it home.
There appears to be no substitute for nationalism. The alternative is irrational, is today’s Venezuela.
So let’s do get on around this Bush. Stop the rhetoric. Stop the wars. Stop destroying our culture and our republic. Rebuild it and protect it with more than your words. Try the truth this time.
The Media Are Telling You George W. Bush Attacked Trump. Here’s What They’re Not Telling You.
October 19, 2017
On Thursday, former President George W. Bush spoke at the “Spirit of Liberty: At Home, In The World” event in New York. There, he delivered a barnburner address taking on the ideologies of both the Left, the “nationalist populist” Right, and the alt-right. Naturally, the press focused solely and exclusively on his attacks on “nationalist populism” (the scare quotes signify that this is not an actual ideology, but a pastiche of attitudes and ideas having little to do with a thoroughgoing philosophy) — Trumpism.
And, to be fair, Bush did excoriate elements of so-called Trumpism.
Bush explicitly and cogently attacked the West’s declining confidence in economic freedom and political democracy, condemning Europe’s “identity crisis,” which he said bred “insolvency, economic stagnation, youth unemployment, anger about immigration, resurgent ethno-nationalism, and deep questions about the meaning and durability of the European Union.”
He seemed to be referring to President Trump when he stated:
We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism — forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America. We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade — forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism. We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments — forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places, where threats such as terrorism, infectious disease, criminal gangs and drug trafficking tend to emerge.
But Bush did far more than that.
He led off by recognizing that the populist Lleft and populist Right had both forgotten some basic truths: that “America has encouraged and benefited from the global advance of free markets, from the strength of democratic alliances, and from the advance of free societies.” And he noted that the Left particularly had ignored the lessons of the Cold War: “There are some signs that the intensity of support for democracy itself has waned, especially among the young, who never experienced the galvanizing moral clarity of the Cold War, or never focused on the ruin of entire nations by socialist central planning.”
He explained that the divisions of Americans into tribal classes are quashing the American spirit:
Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication. … We have seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty. At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions — forgetting the image of God we should see in each other.
In the end, Bush stated, all of this was a “combination of weariness, frayed tempers, and forgetfulness.”
Bush’s speech wasn’t perfect. He continued to express the unsupportable idea that “the desire for freedom is not confined to, or owned by, any culture; it is the inborn hope of our humanity.” That is obviously untrue, simply by glancing at either history or contemporary cultures around the world, many of which value purity or equality before freedom.
But Bush reminded Americans that “Freedom is not merely a political menu option, or a foreign policy fad; it should be the defining commitment of our country, and the hope of the world.” Both the nationalist populists and the modern-day Left have ignored that moral reality.
So while the media rush to point out Bush’s opposition to so-called Trumpism, they were willing to ignore his just-as-harsh attacks on Democratic leftism. Bush clearly called for hardening our defenses, including cyberdefense against Russia; he called for renewed American leadership around the world based on principles of freedom; he talked up globalization as both inevitable and desirable in economic terms. Most of all, he talked up education in virtue:
Our identity as a nation — unlike many other nations — is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood. Being an American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility. We become the heirs of Thomas Jefferson by accepting the ideal of human dignity found in the Declaration of Independence. We become the heirs of James Madison by understanding the genius and values of the U.S. Constitution. We become the heirs of Martin Luther King, Jr., by recognizing one another not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. This means that people of every race, religion, and ethnicity can be fully and equally American. It means that bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed. And it means that the very identity of our nation depends on the passing of civic ideals to the next generation.
Bush condemned the media for failures of accuracy and fairness; he condemned religious institutions for abandoning the playing field; he condemned colleges for shutting down free expression.
Bush’s speech, in other words, was a ringing re-emphasized Reagan conservatism. The media ignore that the populist Left has more in common with the populist Right than with Bush’s perspective; they take advantage of the (R) next to Bush’s name to use him as a club against Trump. But Bush stood against both Trumpism and Obamaism; he stood in favor of a founding vision rather than the demagoguery of the moment.
And the media will never bother to headline that little fact. It might remind Americans that traditional conservatism is a better solution than either of the currently ascendant alternatives.
Thanks for an excellent summary of concerns we should all have regarding our leaders’ repetitive actions that defy logic and common sense. People, leaders included, do things for a reason. The reasoning may be distorted, but our leaders have a logic path likely based on false or self-serving assumptions that justify their actions. As such, our leader’s actions that have hurt our country, (The Iran nuclear deal, encouraging Islamic immigration, giving our commercial expertise to China, installing Kaspersky (KGB) software onto government computers, etcetera) were done for a reason. What higher rationale justifies our leaders actions, which continually defy common sense?
Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments John.