Division Precedes Union

2005-2-27 15:02:00

Larry writes:

"It is perhaps too early to predict whether George W. Bush will be in this company, but given his record so far, I would guess that he stands a pretty good chance."

John writes:

"By the standard of uniting this country, I would have to rate him at the bottom. He entered office with the country very polarized, and he has done nothing to decrease that polarization, but it has only increased."

Abraham Lincoln came into office during an even greater polarization. Some Congressmen were even attacking each other physically. He was also accused of doing nothing to bring the country together but was accused by all (foreign and domestic) of increasing the division. Conspirators from France, England and the U.S. (North and South) sought his life.

During the first part of his term he did quite a bit to foster unity. He invited many democrat leaders to meet and lunch with him. He invited the Kennedys over to watch the release of the movie 13 Days, about JFK and the Cuban missile crisis. He invited Edward Kennedy to assist in working out an education bill. The current bill is largely the work of Kennedy, but Bush never did receive any credit for cooperation. The only comments from the Democrats was that there was not enough money spent while at the same time complaining he was spending too much money.

When he came in office a lot of Republicans wanted Bush to go after Clinton for his outrageous pardons and Clinton staff who vandalized and sabotaged the White House leaving behind unusable computers, pornography on the computers and walls, and unusable telephone systems from the cutting of cables and wires.

Bush felt that for the sake of unity it was best to begin without dwelling on Clinton accusations and moved on.

President Carter criticized Bush unceasingly after the war began and many think he was selected for the Nobel Peace prize as a statement against Bush. He then criticized Bush during his acceptance speech.

After all this he was invited to the White House for recognition of the prize and Bush only gave him words of praise, ignoring the temptation to fester the division.

When he was governor of Texas he was praised by many Democrats for reaching across the aisle and I'm sure he thought he could do the same thing as president. I saw a lot of evidence that he started with this attitude but later concluded that he was now in a different ball game and decided to go by what he thought was right rather than with a desire to please.

Because of the fiercely close election and the polarization I do not think he could have done any uniting unless he were willing to give up all that he believed in, which is too much to ask of anyone.

John C:

"He is one of the most hated presidents we have ever had. This might be short-sighted thinking on the part of some, but being hated is no sign that he is right, or that he is wrong."

Being hated is not a sign one is right, but it is a sign that the person is doing something. Whenever a person effectively works for positive change he will be hated. Only about a third of the country supported Washington during the Revolutionary War and he was hated by about a third.

Lincoln was the most hated president we have ever had, even more than Bush, and for what? -- saving the union and freeing the slaves.

Imagine a world where the nation stayed divided and slavery had remained. Most likely the South would have teemed up with Hitler and the result of World War II would have been a different story.

John C:

"He might be doing all the right things, and a future generation of Americans may come to revere him for the things he accomplished, but I fear that if this country gets any more divided, there won't be a future generation of Americans to praise his accomplishments."

All great unions are preceded by the fiercest of divisions. The revolutionary period and the Civil War are two examples noted.

Now that the dust has settled on the Iraq War and progress is being made Bush is seeking reconciliation with Europe and has made a very successful trip there recently. Instead of gloating with his success he talked only of past and present unity with no words of attack of disrespect.

For the first time the European press said some good things about Bush, even better than most the U.S. press, however one columnist (Mark Brown) who had previously opposed Bush wrote an interesting column entitled:   "What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?" The article can be found at:

http://www.suntimes.com/

He received so much flak for writing this that he was forced to reaffirm his hate for Bush or lose the support of many friends and associates.

Here is a quote from the upcoming March 7th edition of Newsweek about Bush's work with France and Germany.

"Over dinner with France's Jacques Chirac at the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, the two presidents bonded on the need for Syria to leave Lebanon. They even issued an agreement that was proposed only three days earlier-a warp like speed in the world of diplomacy. 'When we and the French are on the same wavelength, there's no one better,' said one senior White House aide. 'They are terrific.' To the French, Bush succeeded by avoiding the issues that clearly divide them. The leaders spent just one minute talking about Iraq, and never touched on Bush's signature policy of spreading democracy through the Middle East.

"It was more of the same in Germany. Bush emerged from his talks with Gerhard Schroeder with a special agreement on climate change and renewable energy-two subjects that Bush rarely mentioned in his first term. White House officials were even ready to forgive Schroeder for recently suggesting that NATO was no longer the best place to coordinate transatlantic strategy."

The truth is that any war can divide a country and usually does. [US President Franklin D. Roosevelt] FDR is criticized on hindsight for not taking out Hitler when he was a small threat, but he did not have the public support, so we had to learn the hard way and wait for Pearl Harbor to awaken us.

The Hierarchy saw an opportunity to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a democracy in the Middle East that could lead to a domino effect for the establishment of more democracies and thus establish the stability and freedom necessary to make the reappearance of the Christ productive. When Bush was praying about whether or not to go to war in Iraq the Christ himself sent him a powerful impression to go forward. This is why Bush has moved forward on the establishment of democracy despite all the criticism he has received.

Critics say: "But you can't overthrow all dictatorships?"

The answer is no. You can't overthrow them all at once, but they can be taken down one at a time and most of them without war.

  

"Faced with crisis, the man of character falls back on himself. He imposes his own stamp of action, takes responsibility for it, makes it his own."
  -- Charles De Gaulle (1890 - 1970)