Decision Points by
George W. Bush
My rating:
4 of 5 stars
President Bush states at the beginning that this book is not a typical memoir but will just focus on his big decisions in his office as President. But then it starts out as a typical memoir, just super not chronological. It’s extremely disorientating. But this is largely remedied starting on Chapter 4 where he really does start to focus issue by issue.
He took appointing his advisors and personnel extremely seriously: especially those involved with national security and economics. However, he didn’t actually listen to Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill who opposed tax cuts. (
http://old.post-gazette.com/nation/20...)
It's notable, given today’s climate, that G.W. Bush was at least interested in policy, even if in my opinion, it was misguided policy. For example, he mentions at the beginning that he opposed the regulations that Democrats wanted to impose on oil. I mean, hello? We all know about global warming, oil spills, non-renewable energy sources, and terrorism coming from countries profiting from oil? Right? Hello?
It was enlightening to view his perspective on stem cell research. It was particularly interesting that he had rebranded himself as the first person who allowed federal funding for stem cell research because he allowed it for lines where the embryos had already been destroyed. While I find his arguments in favor human dignity very much worth considering in light of the underpinnings to human rights, I'm not sure how he squared that with the use of torture on terrorism suspects. His defense of the "torture" (he disagrees it is torture) is that it was legal (debatable) and that it got useful information that could save lives. But this is strikingly similar to arguments in favor of stem cell research- people discount the interests of the embryos in favor of the benefit to living people suffering from diseases. In both cases, the potential benefits are hypothetical and hopeful. Moral choices can only be made with the information and science available at that time, so I don't think whatever developments occurred in stem cell research later frees him of responsibility for his choices at the time. Nor does his position that the torture was legal make sense in the face of his Justice Department saying it was not.
As for security surveillance, having read a few books on the topic now, I think this is a needlessly politicized topic. Both parties seem to support some restricted surveillance that protects Americans’ rights when it is their party doing it. Of course, there are a few people who always oppose it, and some that always support- but consistent views in the face of an administration change are rare.
While his attempt to improve education is noble, it's frustrating how trusting of capitalism and money conservatives are, until suddenly they are not. "Holding schools accountable," when schools depend on money from unequal property taxes-- seems like a recipe for failure. Granted, Bush says that federal funds for education increased and that "much of the extra money" went to poor students, but I'm not sure what that means. Generally speaking, depending on local property taxes not only disadvantages poor students but also causes a lot of divided housing. This is less of a conservative issue though, and more of an American issue.
For those of us who were concerned about Afghanistan well before 9/11 happened, Bush's decision to go to war there was not surprising and easily defensible. It is my belief that is likely that a Democratic president would have also gone to war with Afghanistan in the post-9/11 situation. The problem with the war in Iraq though, besides that after the fact we never found weapons of mass destruction, was that at the time it was clear that the administration had decided to go to war there much earlier in the timeline than Bush now admits. That’s part of what made it unbelievable to the public that weapons of mass destruction were even the issue. Also, during 9/11 we’d been attacked by terrorists with ties to the Taliban of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and as it turned out, Pakistan... so we went to war with... Iraq? Bush pretends this insanity was not clearly visible at the time but it certainly was to me and all my friends living in the Washington area at the time, as well as 21 Senators and numerous Congresspeople that voted against the resolution to go to war.
Regarding Katrina, I do think Bush did the best he could. One issue that seems present not only in the Katrina disaster but in Republican policies in general, is a lack of recognition of the particular problems of poor people. Part of the reason people don't evacuate is that they have nowhere to go and can't afford hotels. The bigger problem, which he doesn't address is the Republican policies of climate change. Sure, this was one of the first big storms of climate change, but there have subsequently been many more, and this was all predicted well before Katrina. I wrote a college paper on the effects of climate change in 2000-2001 and it was already old news by then.
I really enjoyed reading a conservative describe the failure of the market economy with regards to the mortgage-backed securities that caused the Subprime mortgage crisis. No kidding! That's why liberals support regulations!! It gives me a headache to read it really.
Things that are documented facts that Bush conveniently leaves out of memoir: 1) Prescott Bush’s (“Gampy”) history of eugenics support; 2) G.W.’s racist attack on McCain during the 2000 primaries (the political action committees pretended to poll Republicans while really dropping insinuations that McCain had a black child out of wedlock. In fact, McCain adopted a child from Bangladesh; 3) Since that dirty trick worked so well he did it again in the election against Kerry, this time digging up conservative Vietnam veterans willing or confused into lying regarding Kerry’s military performance (Not only is the Swift Boat Veterans documented, I personally know staff at the PAC that admitted it was all a lie); 4) The large protests at both of his inaugurations. The first inaugural protests focused on how he had lost both the popular vote and probably also the electoral votes. The second inauguration ‘s protest focused on opposition to the Iraq War.
I don't think he's a terrible person. I even think he cares about minorities, poor Americans, and immigrants. The problems are 1) that he approaches the country's problems from a position of lifelong privilege so he literally doesn't understand the systemic injustices making certain problems difficult to surmount individually, 2) a lot of misinformation. So with regards to #1- why didn't people evacuate Katrina? No money to evacuate. Why don't people recognize that a fetus is a baby we can love? Because the point is that many women don't have financial, emotional, or societal support to make having a baby tenable- and requiring them to carry a pregnancy to term when they have other financial responsibilities is extremely abusive. Stop abortions by providing free and accessible birth control, free or affordable medical care, reasonable family leave laws, and affordable childcare. Even his wife was on bedrest-- how would that have gone if they weren't wealthy enough for that to be doable? As for #2, misinformation: tax cuts don't create jobs. Don't take it from me, take it from every economist.
PS. It’s interesting also that people who didn’t support gay rights, notably the Clintons, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and even Barack Obama, actually didn’t believe in the anti-gay claptrap. It’s also kind of infuriating how much they harmed society, not because of deeply held beliefs, but because of politics.
View all my reviews
The Ocean at the End of the Lane by Neil Gaiman
