Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Five years ago, Charles Krauthammer declared that the American left suffered from “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, an ailment typified by a desire to blame everything that went wrong in the world on the current President. Thankfully, I’ve never contracted BDS, but unfortunately, I must disclose that I suffer from another malady: Bush Disappointment Syndrome.

The symptoms of this disorder are anger and frustration—anger over Bush’s multiple mistakes, and frustration over the reality that Bush, who had the potential to become a great President, has not lived up to his initial promise. I’m not the only one suffering from this ailment. All over the country, folks on the center-right are dealing with the pain of this disease.

It’s hard to say when Bush Disappointment Syndrome began to manifest itself. Did it start with No Child Left Behind, or the Medicare prescription drug benefit? Did the suffering begin with the Harriet Miers mess, or the Dubai Ports World fiasco? It’s hard to say when it began, but now it’s become an epidemic.

Libertarian-minded Republicans have also felt the sting of Bush Disappointment Syndrome. At least the libertarian GOP can point to the specific causes of their illness: Bush’s endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and his support of efforts to preserve Terri Schiavo’s life in 2005. (Some libertarians have argued that their symptoms first started appearing when Bush nominated John Ashcroft as his first Attorney General.)

The length of the Iraq War has also triggered new cases of Bush Disappointment Syndrome: in the mid-2000s, even William F. Buckley was diagnosed with the war-related version of this sickness. While many conservatives still believe that Saddam Hussein had to be ousted from power, there are quite a few folks on the center-right who wish that the war had been won long before now. (If Bush had been able to stabilize Iraq and send our troops home by the end of 2005, he would be considered Ronald Reagan’s equal by this point.) It will be a long time before America again wages a “pre-emptive” war (even a “pre-emptive” war whose necessity cannot be logically questioned), and because of this, even those who give Bush praise for preventing a 9/11 sequel are feeling the weakness and nausea associated with this syndrome.

Those afflicted with this disorder can’t help remembering the “good old days” of the early-2000s, when Bush had astronomical approval ratings and seemed to be well on his way towards grasping the brass ring of excellence Reagan seized in the 1980s. Most of the folks who voted for Bush in 2000, whether they want to admit it to themselves or not, did so out of nostalgia: they were hoping that Bush could recapture some of the old Reagan magic and restart the political revolution the Gipper began two decades before.

The Bush administration has been a dream deferred for conservatives. The size of government swelled, and the Republican Party’s prospects for political dominance shrank. The left became more powerful, more entrenched, more effective during the Bush years, while the right became frail and stale.

Michelle Obama is right for the wrong reasons when she says America’s soul has been broken.  It is inaccurate to say that America as a whole has a broken soul, but when it comes to the American right, there is no question that spirits have been damaged. Conservatives feel, not without reason, that the last eight years have been a bait-and-switch. They supported Bush in the hopes that he would continue Reagan’s effort to check the growth of liberalism; now, they see liberalism so powerful that it could elect a President long on rhetoric and short on experience.

I’d still vote for Bush given the same alternatives presented in 2000 and 2004. Yet, it is impossible to deny that his entire administration has been, on the whole, a missed opportunity. Yes, Bush gave the right Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and highly qualified judges on the federal district and appellate courts. Yes, he presided over an economy that, prior to the woes of late-2007 and early-to-mid-2008, was quite strong. Yes, he installed the firewalls that kept the country safe from the virus of post-9/11 terrorism. Yet he could have done so much more.

Reagan moved the country to the right, at least for a time. Where did Bush move the country? Are Americans more traditional in their views, more patriotic in their thinking, more conservative in their values than they were in 2000? Heck no—otherwise, a man of Obama’s political vision would be commonly regarded as pathetic, instead of Presidential.

Bush was neither a success nor a failure. He was just sort of there, as Clinton was in the 1990s. His administration was focused more on avoiding mediocrity than it was on pursuing excellence—a profound aggravation to his one-time supporters, who demanded excellence. For conservatives, it’s a sad end to a happy beginning, but there’s no way to change the past.  Only the passage of years will provide the ointment that can soothe the pain caused by Bush’s disappointments.