11-4-07, 5:45 pm

What is the measure of a President?


Theodore Roosevelt wrote the introduction for a volume entitled 'The Papers And Writings Of Abraham Lincoln': 'Such a study of Lincoln's life will enable us to avoid the twin gulfs of immorality and inefficiency... It helps nothing to have avoided one if shipwreck is encountered in the other.

[Lincoln's] life teaches our people that they must act with wisdom, because otherwise adherence to right will be mere sound and fury without substance; and that they must also act high-mindedly, or else what seems to be wisdom will in the end turn out to be the most destructive kind of folly.'

If we use that standard to measure the current occupant of the White House, there can be no doubt that George W. Bush falls woefully short.

He has proven, to the astonishment of physics scholars, that it is possible to fall off both sides of a bridge at the same time. Whereas a President would carefully lead, he has carelessly pushed the nation headlong into both of the 'twin gulfs of immorality and inefficiency.' He has somehow managed to be so incompetent, and so morally deficient as to have not avoided either shipwreck, and has crashed the vessel of our nation into the jagged rocks of two separate shores. Even now, when the ship is sinking, he not only refuses to return to port for repairs – he will not even allow the crew to bail water.

What sort of Captain deliberately draws the ire of foes at the cost of friends? What manner of Commander makes enemies of the neutral or indifferent? What kind of Chief, entrusted with tremendous power, wields that power so recklessly that the power becomes practically useless?

How can a man who had the full support of a huge majority of his own nation, along with the sympathy and backing of the entire International community, conduct himself in such an irresponsible manner that he loses it all in just a few short years? How can the leader of the free world, when presented with the chance to be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents who ever lived, so abuse the trust of the nation and the entire global population as to condemn himself to be remembered as the worst?

The man in the White House today considers Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest President in our history. He often says that while Lincoln was not popular during his Presidency, he is now revered as one of the greatest Americans in history. President Roosevelt seems to speak from the Beyond to Mr. Bush with these words found in the same introduction: 'It is a very poor thing, whether for nations or individuals, to advance the history of great deeds done in the past as an excuse for doing poorly in the present.'

Mr. Bush is too self-consumed to realize comparing poll numbers with Lincoln is idiocy. Lincoln led during a Civil War. Half the country was by definition opposed to him. The Union is now bound so tightly together that it would be implausible for any State to secede. Even in this time of national cohesion, Bush has less support than Lincoln had at any time during his Presidency.

He envisions himself as a great leader who stands on principle, even when he stands alone, and equates his thick-headed stubbornness and uncompromising nature to Lincoln's courage to stand alone for a great cause. But he lacks the moral fiber to understand that the principle must be just before standing on it, and he has no idea what constitutes a 'great cause'. Lincoln's great cause was the end of the forced servitude of a race of people for the sole benefit of another race of people. No similarity exists between the war that ended slavery and the 'war on terror'. Bush does not possess the necessary social conscience to discern the difference. Lincoln corrected an immoral policy. Bush created one.

Lincoln would never have accepted nor condoned a policy that subjected the citizenry to the whim of a President. In fact, if Mr. Lincoln were to be present at one of George Bush's 'English-is-my-second-language' speeches, upon hearing Bush claim the right to 'pre-emptive' invasion of another sovereign country, I have no doubt that he would laugh Bush off the stage in shame. In Lincoln's democratic opinion, 'Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose – and you allow him to make war at his pleasure.'

Perhaps Mr. Bush had a Secret Service agent pre-scan the books he claims to have read on Lincoln, highlighting only the passages he would agree with. Lincoln's own word's condemn Bush's assertion that polls don't matter, saying in one debate: 'Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.'

Lincoln was never the unyielding authoritarian that Bush is. Bush considers himself to be the boss, the ruler, 'The Decider.' Lincoln believed himself to be a servant to the people of the nation. In one speech delivered in Boston in September 1848, he made his views on where power should be vested very clear: '[T]he people's will should be obeyed, and not frustrated by Executive usurpation and the interposition of the veto power.'

And on another occasion: 'The people themselves, and not their servants, can safely reverse their own deliberate decisions. --The President and all government officials do not have the right to reverse the deliberate decisions made by the people.'

Bush has done his level best to ensure that anyone he designates as an 'unlawful enemy combatant' has no rights, and that foreigners are entitled to none of the protections of the Constitution. Lincoln warned of the dangers inherent in denying rights to others that you claim to possess as your own: 'Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.'

The despotism that has now come knocking at our door proves Lincoln's admonition to be prophetic. One man, among a citizenry of millions, is laying claim to unlimited, unquestioned, unchecked, and therefore un-Constitutional power. That is the exact definition of a tyrant.

Lincoln left us with much wise advice that still applies today, and all of us would do well to spend a few hours of our time to explore that wisdom. For example, what does Lincoln say about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales? 'I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.'

Lincoln would consider Gonzales a liar for making assertions that he was unsure of – even if they turned out to be true. The same maxim can be applied to the administration's claim that Iraq absolutely, positively had WMDs. What wisdom could Mr. Lincoln impart to Bush and Gonzales about how to deal with the fact that no sane American now believes a word the Attorney General says? 'If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.'

Lincoln would have fired Fredo's sorry behind, told him he was lucky not to be shot, and personally booted his tail out the front gates into Pennsylvania Avenue.

What would he say about a President who refuses to learn from his mistakes? 'I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.'

How would he feel about the policy decision to not talk to our enemies?

'I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.' and -- 'Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?'

How would he deal with the news that a full 70 percent of Iraqis say they don't want us there?

'No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent.'

What would Honest Abe think about the ridiculous accusations that dissenters are unpatriotic and traitorous? 'To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. --A person cannot be called unpatriotic for protesting policy or war. If they look the other way when wrongs are committed, they sin by their silence, and are cowards.'

President Lincoln had a deep understanding of what true liberty is. George Bush can barely spell it.

But perhaps the biggest defining difference between President Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush is humility. While delivering a speech to the young men of the 166th Ohio Regiment, Lincoln showed his understanding of the temporary, and ultimately insignificant nature of a man's life in the grand scheme of things when he modestly stated: 'I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House.'

With that one short sentence, Lincoln achieved several objectives. He taught those men that it behooves every man, including the President of the United States, to temper ambition and ego with humility and humbleness. He showed them that the White House was not the personal property of the President, but belonged to the People, and only by the consent of the People is the President allowed to live there. He showed them that the President was not a Ruler, but a Servant; not a better, but an equal - and subject to the same laws as they were. But the final objective was his main objective:

He revealed to the young soldiers that each of them had a chance to temporarily occupy that same White House, if they chose to pursue it.

President Lincoln knew that there was no power vested in him. All power is vested in the People, who rent part of it to the Executive office. In return, the President must fulfill a contract with the People. He is not obligated to provide 'good' government, because most aspects of government, while necessary, do not lend themselves to the description of 'good'. But he is obligated to help give the People fair government, and honest government. He is obligated to provide a government that is, itself, governed by the Constitution. A President is obligated to submit to the authority of the People, because he is accountable to the People. The President has no authority except that which the People permit him. The People giveth, and the People can surely taketh away.

Compare that to a red-faced 60 year-old juvenile delinquent throwing a tantrum in the Oval Office, pounding his chest while barking, 'I AM THE PRESIDENT!'

Compare that to a man who feels it necessary to repeatedly remind the country at press conferences that, 'I AM THE DECIDER'.

Anyone who must constantly tell everyone that he is the President, probably isn't a very good one. This man's beleaguered occupation of the Executive office has been one long soundbite. His speeches consist entirely of regurgitated talking points, spoon-fed to him by his propaganda corps. He has shown no indication that he is even capable of the occasional original thought.

George W. Bush has demonstrated no wisdom at any time during his reign of terror, and he has engaged in the most destructive kind of folly. He has committed crimes against Humanity. He has brought shame upon the country that was once the best-loved, most respected nation in the world. He has boasted of destroying Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms, and then built his own. He has inflicted more damage on our country than any suicide bomber could. He has been directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people around the globe.

George W. Bush has broken more laws than most felons serving 25-year sentences. He has ignored the Will of the People. He has broken his Oath to protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution. He has betrayed the trust of a nation that now sees him for what he is -- and he certainly is no Lincoln.

For all his bluster, for all his arrogant swagger, for all his unconvincing assertions of his belief in the 'Rule of Law', George W. Bush is all sound and fury without substance.

Mr. Bush may temporarily occupy the White House - but he is by no measure a President.