Reasons for giving thanks to President Bush

For many weeks, learning more about Tibetan meditative practice has been a goal during my early morning ‘quiet time.’ How to Practice: A Guide to A Meaningful Life, by His Holiness, the Dalai Lama has been my principal resource.

Forgiving enemies is a a theme of many spiritual traditions. However the Dalai Lama’s views regarding enemies are even more demanding. He believes they should be valued as spiritual gifts because of the opportunities to change, grow stronger and practice compassion they provide.

The Chinese Communist leaders who ordered the invasion of Tibet, tortured and killed many Tibetan citizens and drove the Dalai Lama into exile provide an illustration. He acknowledges that the invasion catalyzed needed changes in Tibetan spiritual practices and raised the visibility of those practices on a global stage. He speaks of how Communist outrages compelled a rigorous testing of his own monastic vows emphasizing radical compassion, forgiveness and non violence.

I would not place President George Bush in the same category as the Chinese Communist leaders who ordered the invasion of Tibet. But I believe we must recognize contribution of his administration’s failed economic policies, flawed international policies, corruption and incompetence that even conservative-leaning publications such as The Economist have highlighted. Absent these failures, the transformational election America has just witnessed might well not have occurred. President Bush provides us, too, with an opportunity to practice compassion and to forgive.

'The Economist' endorses Barak Obama - he's dormgrandpop's choice too

The Economist magazine endorses Barak Obama - he’s my choice too.
If one reads only a single news publication each week, I believe The Economist should be the one. Its principal editorial offices are in London, however its reach is worldwide. Its quality coverage of economic, business, science and technology news surpasses that of competing weekly news magazines by a wide margin. Its political coverage is nuanced, balanced and written in elegant prose. Its cartoons, especially its cover cartoons, are the best in the business. Though it is printed in the UK, its larger audience must be US since US focused articles almost always come first. Its political and economic positions tend to be more conservative than my own, however I always read them with care and sometimes change my opinion.

The Economist does not shrink from no-nonsense editorial judgements. Its 2004 pre-presidential issue was titled, ‘The incompetent or the incoherent.’ It noted that “this years battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his ambitions for it and John Kerry who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago.” Having endorsed George Bush in 2000, the Economist switched to Kerry, in 2004, but grudgingly. In 1992 it endorsed democrat Bill Clinton, in 1996 republican Bob dole. In 1988 it made no endorsement.

In the 2008 pre-election number, The Economist’s editorial appraisal of the Bush administration is much harsher than in 2004; surprisingly harsh for a publication that weighs its words carefully. The editorialists write: “A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow, Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern fried moralism.

About Senator McCain, the editorialists write: ‘If only the real John McCain had been running? [but] in the past six months he has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery; his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. ...Had he become president in 2000,” they conclude, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems and Mr. McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

The endorsement of Obama is titled “he has earned it.” The editorialists write, “...this cannot be another election where the choice is based mainly on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr. Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Weather he can fulfill his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr. Obama deserves the presidency.”

Had John McCain been the Republican nominee in 2000 he would have had my vote and, I believe, won convincingly. Tragically his ‘straight talk’ candidacy was derailed by scurrilous primarily campaign tactics in South Carolina, reputedly orchestrated by George’ W. Bush’s political guru, Carl Rove. That was Senator McCain’s moment. I believe this campaign has demonstrated that the moment for this decent, courageous American to be president has passed. If Obama does win, perhaps he will emulate Matt Santos, the Obama-like character in the TV series, The West Wing, by finding a place for Senator McCain in his new administration.

My home is in Virginia, as regular dormgrandpop readers will know. I voted by absentee ballot several days ago. My choice was Barak Obama.

Check out all the details of the pre-election issue - and much more - at http://www.economist.com. And if you have not yet done so, be sure to vote tomorrow.

'The Economist' appraises America's foreign policy

Awaiting me when I go to my home away from Anderson Hall is the weekly number of The Economist.  While I don’t always agree with the views of this conservative, British-based  publication, I value the depth of its reports, elegant graphics and sense of humor.  It is also available on line in a richly hyperlinked verson at www.economist.com.

This weeks number featured a 14 page special report on The Future of America’s Foreign Policy, which merits serious reading by all AU students, indeed, by everyone.  It offered a surprisingly harsh critique of President Bush, whom, as I recall, the Economist endorsed in 2004.  

“....Whereas September 11th had brought America together, his [President Bush’s] decisions to invade Iraq and turn the “war on terror” into a partisan issue relentlessly divided the country.  Democratic opposition to the war gathered strength with the insurgency in Iraq and exploded into fury as it became clear that Saddam Hussein’s regime had neither weapons of mass destruction or close ties to Al Quaeda.

The opposition to the war eventually spread beyond the Democratic Party.  And public unease about the iraq debacle has turned into much broader unease about American foreign policy.  Mr. Bush’s foreign policy has turned its author into one of the most polarizing presidents in American History.  At home he is about as popular as Richard Nixon at the depths of the Watergate scandal; abroad he is seen as a war mongering buffoon.