In the Fate of Empires post, Sir John Glubb points out the selfishness-over-service traits of the leadership of a failing empire. I'm correlating this with what President George Herbert Walker Bush had to say about his breaking the "no new taxes" pledge he made at the 1988 Republican nominating convention. What he said was that he knew that the tax increase was not good for him politically, but good for the nation. In other words, he put the nation's interests ahead of his own.
The conservatives went berserk on him, and it was a just response, but perhaps not the wisest one. Bush did violate his pledge, but his intentions were consistent with the long term interests of the nation. Keeping the pledge may have worked better for him politically, but he declined to do that, as he pointed out.
Here's what may be conservative heresy: the conservatives should not have abandoned him, despite his betrayal. When they did, they behaved in selfish manner that is inconsistent with the long term interests of the nation, as defined by Glubb. This opened the door for the Democrats and gave us Clinton, and eventually Obama.
The people didn't abandon Bush because he violated his pledge. They probably saw how the conservatives abandoned their own President, and must have said to themselves, "why should we support them when they won't support their own President."
Bush did say that he should have "gotten a better deal". The better deal would be an agreement to raise taxes if the Democrats would pass a balanced budget amendment and send it to the states. At least Bush could have said he got something commensurate with the violation of his pledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment