Other Columns by Doug Patton
Doug Patton Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

The Price of Leadership
By Doug Patton
March 11, 2002

On this, the half-year anniversary of 9-11, it pains me to have to confess that if it were not for the prosecution of the war on terror, I would find precious little to love about the performance of the Bush Administration thus far. Make no mistake: there is no Democrat on the horizon who would be better, or for whom I would even consider voting, but that is not saying much at all. Before we proceed to the lengthening list of negatives, let us recall the few positives of the president's first year.

Pre-September 11, George W. Bush pushed for tax relief. The check was enough to buy a few weeks' worth of groceries. Regardless, I, for one, was glad to get it. I was proud of my president when he proclaimed to the Chinese that they had nothing to fear by embracing the American ideals of faith, family and freedom.

And I appreciate Mr. Bush's recent attempts to use his bully pulpit to reinforce the institution marriage by preaching its virtues to the most socially devastated among us, the poor.

Then, as I said, there is the prosecution of the war. It has been virtually flawless so far, and our casualties have been very low. When it comes to acting in his capacity as commander-in-chief, I give Mr. Bush full credit for earning his 81 percent approval rating. Unfortunately, that is exactly where his father's presidency stood in the polls a year and a half before losing his bid for reelection, proving that political capital cannot be hoarded; it must be invested.

This brings us to the majority of this president's domestic agenda.

The president's decision to use our tax revenues to pay for even limited stem cell research has further pushed open the door to the brave new world. It was a mistake from a pro-life president.

Mr. Bush tried to sell the so-called education bill as the greatest thing since full-time teachers. It is not. It is arguably the most massive intrusion of the federal government into the education of our children since Jimmy Carter created the Education Department to pay off the teachers' unions for their support in the 1976 election. It purports to give parents information through testing, but strips them of the only option that has a prayer of improving public education - true school choice.

In an effort to appear above the fray, the president left two very capable, conservative GOP gubernatorial candidates, Mark Earley of Virginia and Brett Schundler of New Jersey, twisting in the political wind. They lost. Might they have won with the president's support? We'll never know because he didn't try. Does anyone doubt for a moment that Clinton or Gore would have campaigned for the Democrats in those races?

Then the White House hand-selected the very liberal Richard Riordan to run for governor of California. California Republicans responded by handing Riordan his own political head on a platter, selecting instead a man who actually believes in GOP principles. Imagine that.

Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared on MTV, telling the nation's youth to ignore conservative ideas like abstinence. What is the Secretary of State doing on MTV anyway? I thought we were past that kind of nonsense after we settled the question of Bubba's choice of underwear.

Powell then weighed in on the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, criticizing Israel for defending itself against Yasser Arafat and his murderous minions.

Mr. Bush imposed a tariff on foreign steel. There goes our tax cut, because we will all be paying more for everything made of steel in order to prop up a dying, over-unionized American industry. So much for free trade.

Finally, after allowing Judge Charles Pickering to be "Borked" for weeks by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Bush issued a mild "enough is enough" statement. It was too little, too late.

And now all indications are that Bush will sign the atrocious, unconstitutional, so-called campaign finance reform bill, after promising during the 2000 campaign to veto it.

This "moderate" approach to all things domestic may serve Mr. Bush well in this fall's off-year elections. It may serve him even better when it comes time for his own reelection campaign two years from now. He knows it would take a lot of betrayal on his part to force most of us to ever vote for a Democrat. But with our most cherished constitutional rights hanging in the balance, doesn't it seem like a terrible price to pay for one man's election?

George W. Bush must ask himself one simple question: In the scheme of history, and for the sake of the nation, do I want to be known as a great leader or the lesser of two evils? You can't be both, Mr. President.