What a sad commentary, the loss of civility and inability to express a modicum of kindness is disgusting. The stridency of the extreme left and right does nothing but further divide our country. We can thank the 24 news cycle for much of this, where people get sound bites from political gas bags whose agenda is to increase ratings and pander to their ignorant constituencies.
2
Politics, after all, is the process through which humans, in all their fallibility, complexity, and contradictions, govern themselves and each other. Yes, Trump and his ilk need to remember that and apply it to themselves, but we all need to cut each other a little slack. Those other folks are as human as we are, and humans aren't perfect --
2
Screw this hail-fellow-well-met gentlemanly gloves-on baloney.. Before the 2000 election (coup), I had remained a "balanced" liberal.
But I still have PTSD from that shocking view of the true fanged muzzle behind the Republican party's hypocritical "conservative" facade. Any liberal who witnessed the Machiavellian grab of that election from Al Gore should certainly have awakened when the unqualified, George W. Bush took his country into a vicious war based on risible, blatant lies. We have not yet begun to atone for the blue murder we perpetrated --- and for perhaps some Oedipal need of the young Bush to further his father's middle eastern agenda? (That's as close to a rationale as I can summon.)
The pure sociopathy of the Republicans calls for a new stance. Yesterday's gentlemanly nodding and bowing toward a deceased adversary is an anachronism. That era is past.
The Republicans have compounded the perfidy of 2000 by elevating Trump. We are now in a battle for our very skins and those of our descendants.
I never saw the elder Bush elevate himself to truly challenge Trump. As for Bush the son, well, he is a war criminal, as are his minions. Hoiw many innocents are dead because of what we did? Now we have a demagogue in office and are losing our habitable planet.
14
The "broader, deeper assessments" of GHWB's presidency of which Mr. Bruni writes is the stuff of historians. In good time, I suspect that Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss or some other scholar will weigh-in sagely.
For the moment, however, let us accord the respect due to a decent man who possessed that most prized element of human decency, a robust sense of humor with a delicious capacity for self-deprecation. We are losing that art in the high reaches of our public identity.
Agree or not with this policy or that, at his best 41 was an authentic leader who inspired superb measures for the country and the world. At his worst, he was middling. Let's look in the mirror; most of should give our eye teeth for such a record.
5
In its own way, this op-ed piece is an indictment of educational policy and programs, which today emphasizes factual recall, rote learning, black and white and low level thinking. Complexity in thinking is not incentivized nor rewarded. Wouldn't it be nice if our kids were taught nuance and complexity as they learned history and science, read complex novels, studied math, art and music, and even focused on physical education! Holding two diverse, sometimes opposite thoughts in mind at the same time (in this case the good and bad in the life of George HW Bush) is something that educators should strive for as they help students deal with a very complex 21st century world.
5
Thoughtful essay and eliciting a thoughtful thread, but I wish Mr Bruni hadn't gone into the "due process" and "presumption of innocence" business in connection with Mr Kavanaugh's hearings. These are terms of jurisprudence and judicial process, and while withholding private judgement maybe be wise more often than not, the plain fact is that an ordinary person cannot seek testimony from subpoena'd witnesses, cross-examine them, recall them, inspect exhibits, or offer plea bargains. All we have to go on is flawed and fragmentary personal observation or maybe media reports (which ditto, in spades). Concluding, on the basis of what evidence one thinks one has, that there's "something fishy", is not the same as rushing to judgement, and nobody, not even Brett Kavanaugh, has any scintilla of a RIGHT to be placed on the Supreme Court that would be infringed by an opinion that he shouldn't be. Without being able to claim knowledge of more than a stray fact or two, including my own observation of his evasiveness and dishonesty, I'm perfectly within my own rights to declare, with some confidence, that Mr Kavanaugh not only shouldn't be placed on the Supreme Court, he shouldn't be on the Court of Appeals, either.
6
Your point is well taken Mr. Bruni, but I can't see how you can call a man decent, who had a mistress most of his adult life and treated anyone not white male and presumably Christian as if they were second class citizens.
You might say a lot of things about H W Bush, but decent is not a word that comes to mind.
7
Sorry, Frank, I don't disagree with your general argument (though I have noticed that when controversial figures die they immediately turn into saints) but you're way off base on your examples.
Re the Kavanaugh hearings: "A person can...also worry about a pile-on against him that laid waste to the concepts of due process and presumption of innocence." No, it wasn't due process because not all witnesses were heard, not all relevant documentation was released, not enough time was granted for the Judiciary Committee to examine the limited documentation that was released, and the Committee members' time for questioning was strictly limited. There's no presumption of innocence in a confirmation hearing, it's to determine competence and character, not criminal conduct.
Re the stacking of the court: "...a person can...accept that Trump...reminded us that elections have consequences." No, His election wasn't a consequence of the American people's choice. Trump won because of the anachronistic Electoral College, the Republicans' gerrymandering, likely with the help of the Russian government and traitorous campaign workers, and possibly with his own collusion.
Re immigration: "A person can...[acknowledge] that secure borders are a legitimate concern." Yes, but experts say our borders are secure and that immigrants are legally entitled to seek asylum.
You should have found better examples to back up your thesis.
9
It is the attitude discussed by Bruni that has led to there being no compromise possible in almost any situation. This is one of the reasons Congress has been rendered inactive.
1
I can sympathize with Bryan Behar’s upset over his treatment by “progressives”, but the harsh reaction to his words didn’t involve bullets.
Yes, we certainly like our heroes without blemishes -- our Jefferson without Sally Hemmings, our Bush without Willie Horton, our McCain without his opposition to Martin Luther King holiday, and on and on and on ...
2
Looks like the Donald got his parade after all
1
Bush had Horton and McCain had Palin and the worst of all, Trump has McConnell and the rotten Republican Congress. Damned if you do and . . . All that said, Bush and McCain were indeed decent people. That cannot be said for Trump. It is not absolutely necessary to chop down every tree. Give the man his due.
3
Amen . Thanks Frank for your thoughtful piece
2
Real elections have consequences. The past presidential election did not have consequences - it was a planned, criminal take-over, pure and simple. Kavanaugh's temperament has little or nothing to do with anything here; it's the fact that in a fair election, he would never have even been heard of as a Supreme Court nominee. Both he and his predecessor, chosen after a power grab by the 'army of the confederacy, (the republican party), first commandeered the white house, then the senate and house. This whole four years will be a falsehood that should be expunged from our history books, but the Democrats don't do that kind of thing . . .
3
A splendid and almost therapeutic column. Our civic discourse--including online posts in the Times--do seem to be trending in a binary direction. You're either WITH us 100+% or a muddle-headed, possibly morally deficient apostate. Recently I sent a post that stated that I despised Trump and wished him out of office ASAP but questioned whether the assertion in a Times editorial that Trump's motives regarding some issue were obviously corrupt was sufficiently demonstrated. This prompted a response that with considerable vitriol accused me of being a lousy "Trump-stumper" who was easy to "see through". My fear, like Mr. Bruni's, is that we are heading towards a politics that emulates Newton's Third Law--for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Considering how awful Trump's actions are, that is indeed a potentially scary prospect.
4
I completely agree with this article. I felt a mixed bag of emotions about Bush I's death. I was surprised that I carried some sorrow for his loss but I was also feeling anger toward his memory at times. I admire his service and believe he was a war hero. I didn't like his politics but I did agree with his signing of the ADA. I didn't appreciate his lack of support for civil rights but do recall he could work across the aisle even as president. We human beings are alot more complex than we give ourselves credit for.
1
Good article. Keep in mind that for some time each Repubican president makes the previous one look better. Now we have one with no redeeming qualities.
The same sort of problem arises in electing people, except it is about the future, not the past after they died. Voting for people instead of being able to vote directly for or against policies and bills means you are going to get mixed lot. People have good and bad ideas and policies, so no matter who you elect, if you don't get to vote for or against their specific proposals, you don't have control of what they do. Just thinking one candidate is better than another doesn't mean you agree with everything he will do. And saying that an elected official who dies was a good person doesn't mean you agree with everything s/he did or think it is good.
... and speaking of shades of gray ...
Bush and McCain remembrances are logically separate. Both had long political careers - that started with notable military careers - but the differences in their political lives were enormous.
As Vice President, Bush likely committed obstruction of justice in the Iran/Contra affair (and then pardoned people associated with it as President). There's also a strong argument that Bush participated in war crimes as a by-product of Gulf War 1 (the run-up to which was suspicious - at best).
In stark contrast, and when given the chance to pull a Willie Horton-style attack on Obama (during a campaign event), McCain took the high road and famously defended Obama as a decent and patriotic American.
This is exactly why remembrances of McCain weren't marred by controversy - and why remembrances of Bush will be. Especially when the remembrance simply lavishes praise on a man who made some egregious errors of judgment - and then never even acknowledged them.
When he was staring the Grim Reaper in the eye what with his terminal diagnosis, Lee Atwater had an epiphany about the use of William ( Willie ) Horton in his virulent racist campaign ads against Michael Dukakis in the 1988 Presidential race. He converted to Roman Catholicism and apologized to Dukakis - Bush never did. I guess Bush was of the mind that to apologize for anything was a sign of weakness-apparently cut from same cloth as Trump. In the Horton case , nuance is impossible to justify. As usual Shakespeare said it best
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So it goes.
2
A man has just passed. His family is mourning. All criticism of him can and should wait. Anything less is crass and disgusting.
5
While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of Mr. Bruni's article, it falls short on a point that is very significant especially in today's social and political climates.
Life is so much easier, and things that appear incomprehensible and, indeed irreconcilable, are not so hard to understand if we focus on what people do, on their actions, rather than who they are or the group they belong to.
Michael Cohen is a great example, at least the Michael Cohen who's been portrayed in the media the last week or so. Here's someone who did a lot of bad things, and over a long period of time. He deserves to be punished, and hard. But he's also someone who seems to have genuine remorse for his misplaced loyalties. And he's backing up the words with action that may go a long way toward putting Trump and his ilk in their rightful place. That merits respect ..AND.. consideration when he's finally sentenced.
Lindsey Graham is another. I personally consider him no better than a cockroach, ... and my apologies to the true cockroaches. Most of what he says and does is despicable. But his recent attack of outspokenness against the Saudi crown prince and his work with Senator Durban on the DACA issue are admirable.
There are lots of other examples that can't be mentioned because of limited space. But if we focused more on what people do, and not who they are, it would be easier to accept others even if they are different, ... and also easier to recognize what isn't so good and fix it.
2
I couldn’t agree more.
This brings to mind a quotation from F. Scott Fitzgerald,
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
You can overcome cognitive dissonance.
"He showed folly and he showed wisdom, cowardice and courage, aloofness and kindness."
Who doesn't? And it's precisely our inability to see the flaws in ourselves which is likely to lead to ... well, a really, really sad but really, really well deserved ending.
The pure hagiography we've seen this week with regard to GHW Bush is like something out of the late Soviet Union. Take any obituary of him, change a few minor details, substitute a name like Andropov for the name Bush, and you're there.
An honest, historically accurate assessment of the life and work of George HW Bush -- someday we may see such a thing -- would probably leave the average human being gasping for breath, and the average American rightly apoplectic with outrage.
If truth is too much to ask for, in remembrance of the recently deceased, it would be nice to at least have some balance, or even a semblance of it.
3
"The only thing in the middle of the road are dead armadillos."
(Hightower)
Any criticism of anyone who has just passed whether they were a former president or just an average Joe or Jane is crass and disgusting. The criticism can and should wait. This family whether you like them or not is mourning.
2
One item is missing in this opinion piece - President George H.W. Bush shutdown the Iran/Contra scandal with 6 pardons that stopped the Weinberger trial. I've told my wife for years that my obit must include all my warts because that was part of who I was. In fact I'm writing my own, open and honest. Yes you recognize good works but also bad. One more point - If President Bush was so great then why did he receive only 37% of the vote...
1
From "The Parting Glass" an old Irish/Scottish poem c.1600
"......all the harm that e'er I've done alas it was to none but me
and all I've done for want of wit to memory now I can't recall,
so fill to me the parting glass goodnight and joy be with you all...."
1
"Share your thoughts" says the New York Times. Here are my thoughts concerning the funeral:
If I get it right, the corpse being in his/its casket, there will be a ceremony in Texas;
- after which the casket, with the corpse inside, will be flown to Washington for another ceremony, a big and public one, (on TV? -- probably);
- after which the casket, with the corpse inside, will be flown back to Texas for another ceremony and the final burial.
"Ping-Pong", that's the French work for "table tennis". Do they (the family, politicians, etc.) realize how ridiculous all that is, playing "ping-pong" with a corpse?
@Francoise Aline
Not only all of this is ridiculous but, because of it, there will be no mail today. No mail! Even dead, presidents can be a pain in the neck!
3
The issue is writers relying on Twitter.
Come on, really how many people were involved in this. You talk and tweet in your own little worlds of what, a few hundred? Thousands?
‘A person can find Christine Blasey Ford credible, believe that Brett Kavanaugh lacks the temperament for the Supreme Court and also worry about a pile-on against him that laid waste to the concepts of due process and presumption of innocence. ‘
For the millionth time- it was a JOB INTERVIEW not a trial!!!!
3
Let’s remember that Lyndon Johnson gave us civil rights legislation the John F. Kennedy never could have achieved, and LBJ also gave us a Vietnam war born of his lies.
1
Certainly he can be judged as a family man and as a President. Nuance escapes America. A person is multifaceted. One hopes others such leniency at obituary time. Will Cosby benefit from such overly objectivity. After all as far as imparting misery and pain-its probably a 1:1000 ratio.
war crimes, enshrining a reprehensible right wing ideologue of a supreme court justice -- those are his legacies
whether he was nice to his dog or his wife are personal details
2
The glamorizing of GHWBush and refusal to bring up the very obvious crimes (Iran Contra), racial politics (Thomas, W Horton, etc), blindness to humanity (AIDS, gay rights), greed (foreign bank scandal), and so on is simply a response to the unadulterated awfulness of GWBush’s 8yrs and the current manifestation of the GOP and Trump. Recall that Gingrichism flowed from the middle of his term. It has been steady downward deviancy for Republicans since.
3
Bruni would be more credible on this issue if had not,like many writers for the Times (Hi Maureen Dowd) made false equivalencies between Trump and Hillary Clinton. Has Bruni ever praised Clinton? And as a fellow gay man, I am pretty surprised that Bruni can give Bush so much leeway for his homophobic policies. Of course, like all politicians, Bush was a person of his time, and history can be misused when current standards are used to judge people whose formative years were many years before now.
4
Hear, hear! Beautifully said, Mr,. Bruni.
2
The solution is to stop caring whether someone un-follows you on Twitter.
3
Texas State Board of Education is responsible for selecting textbooks.
Their motto is “we doan need no ejikashun”.
All the Bush kids attended private schools.
You need a private school education if you’re to rule.
1
In Canada, rightly or wrongly, we judge presidents by two things: foreign policy actions and domestic policy actions. We realize good men are often forced to act badly by international billionaire oligarchs with more power than the man in the White House. A dignified, nice guy persona is a good example, but style should not be mistaken for substance.
In the US, from 1980-1992, the cause of the poor, working folks, African-Americans, women, gays, and the environment, went nowhere. In the world, the US left a military and diplomatic mess everywhere, from Iran to Granada and Panama, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Cuba, Libya to El Salvador and Nicaragua.
Despite, or because of, victory in the 45-year Cold War, the West left Russia and nations of the former Soviet Union divided and impoverished, beset by US corporations, missionaries, and diplomats, making a second cold war all but inevitable. As well, the seeds for today's populism were sown.
Further, the era marked the start of a war on various Islamic nations that has gone on for some 29 years.
It's imperative for the world that Americans live more by truth, historical fact, and ethical action at home and abroad, less by style, appearances, and myths,
6
This purity test for all is making collaboration impossible. I recently wanted to join a democrat group via meet-up (I am a registered dem). Well you had to answer certain questions like are you pro-choice (which I am). In my answer I said I was pro-choice but that the party had to accept members who might not be. Well so far I have not been let into the group. I do believe that social media exacerbates this neo-tribalism.
2
"But we do seem to be getting worse at complexity. At nuance."
This is true, because nuance is not captured very well in a 140 word missive. Or it does not garner high ratings (and resulting ad revenue) for cable news networks, as opposed to someone shouting about the latest supposed outrage. Such are the signs of our low-attention span times. On the other hand, nuance can receive a fair treatment in the op-ed pages of the New York Times, which is why I come here. Thank you for a good column, Mr. Bruni.
1
I think the problem with acknowledging the good in Bush, McCain or others, following their deaths, is that the tendency is for such tributes to turn into exaggerations of the good to the exclusion of the bad.
Many people remember the bad because they or their family and friends were directly affected by the bad.
How many of us would mourn and laud Hannity, Limbaugh or Trump? But some will and their family and "friends" may recall some little act within their miserable lives which was not a crime, act of selfishness, or statement of hate.
I think it is fine to acknowledge that George H. W. Bush was not as bad as his son W., extremely better than Trump, on par with Reagan's condescension to the suffering of those without privilege. And he had manners.
A few days ago, I was irritated by all the gushing for Bush. It's a ritual to praise a dead leader, a printing up or reading of the boilerplate, after all. And I started numbering his sins, including some of those above.
But then I remembered his memorable acting against type, his colossal role in easing the way for the Soviets and US to negotiate the end of the Cold War. In this, he continued Reagan's incredible turn toward accommodation.
The turn toward faith that the Russians really wanted to end the hostility, and the redirecting of our safe aggressive policy toward taking a chance on permanent peace and resolution, shall probably be known to posterity as the noblest US action of the 20th century. The noblest Russian one, too.
Unfortunately, brave Bush was replaced by plain old conventional Bush. In his last, 1992, State of the Union Address, he proclaimed "By the Grace of God, we won the Cold War." Having negotiated an end without victors, he surely knew that this was untrue.
His boast signaled the turn toward taking the victor's spoils. The most disruptive and aggressive of these was to shove NATO up against the Russian border.
Thanks to that we got Putin, along with renewed Russian appreciation of toughness: a fantasy craze for Stalin.
Some names connected with this torpedoing of the possibility of peace, peace at last: Kissinger, Brzezinski, and Bill Clinton.
Let us remember the brave Bush of 1988-December 1991, and ignore his lapse at the end.
I think that most people, including myself, were not objecting to offering kind words for a deceased man. That is normal and human. What we objected to is the instant hagiography of Mr Bush by the vast majority of the punditocracy and vapid "journalists" on MSNBC and CNN. We are looking for those who engage in journalism to speak truthfully, and their absolute inability to do so is maddening, frustrating, and will destroy our democracy.
5
I agree with Mr. Bruni's premise! I voted, regrettably, for Bush in 1988 and couldn't wait to vote him out in 1992. Still, while his record had major blemishes which are rightly called out, there WAS a fundamental decency to Bush 41 that came across and which increased with time especially as he repented many of his more hard line policy decisions. NO ONE is proud of every decision they've taken throughout their lives yet far too many are quick to judgment. The "tyranny on the right" is well matched by the "tyranny on the left" and while the current POTUS is unequivocally malicious, Bush 41 was not and DID have "shades of grey". I lived every day, as a gay man, with the burden of AIDS hanging over my head during those horrible years without a cure but there were few on EITHER side of the aisle at the time who cared very much. At least he signed the Americans With Disabilities Act which included people with HIV/AIDS, then Clinton got elected and improved funding greatly for research and treatments. History will judge Bush 41 as a "moderate failure" in my view which by today's standards equates to practically a compliment, actually. His biggest failing was allowing others around him with less tolerant views to gain too much power over policy. Still, I never felt that he took any glee in inflicting pain onto others or from one's misfortune. Put into perspective I'd say that's not too bad considering I was quite glad to show him the door in 1992.
"A person can deplore Trump’s recklessly inflammatory characterizations of illegal immigration and treatment of migrants while acknowledging that secure borders are a legitimate concern."
Are you saying a person can or a person should?
1
Thank you for this, Mr. Bruni. It has taken the unceasing cruelty and demagoguery of Donald Trump, a narcissist who is incapable of showing kindness except when it serves his immediate interests, to make me appreciate the fundamental decency of George H.W. Bush, John McCain and even Ronald Reagan. Yes, they were products of a white, privileged culture that is slowly (too slowly) losing its stranglegold on American politics. Yes, they each had moments of venality (sometimes many of them). Yes, I disagreed with them on virtually everything. But each of them believed in ideals that transcended their own self-interest and when each of them behaved badly it was possible to say (as it is for most of us) that they had stooped beneath themselves. It is not possible to say that about the current President.
1
"The former president had just died. In Behar’s view, it was a moment to recognize any merit in the man and his legacy."
That's really no big deal. Most humans have merit and shortcomings. Same for former Presidents. At least, that was the case before Trump came along. Here's a man with so little merit, none as far as I am concerned, that he makes anybody look good in comparaison. Behar didn't betray anyone, 41 did some good, and Trump is still a monument of incompetence and mediocracy.
Praising Bush is like praising cancer for bringing families closer together to care for the person afflicted with cancer. It doesn't mean that cancer is good. Bush had an ability to pass as a decent man while doing horrible things. His smile and warm handshake while presiding over terrible acts doesn't make up for them.
Right-leaning individuals excoriated the AP and this paper for publishing obituaries they did not find sufficiently respectful of President Bush. Left-leaning individuals got themselves in knots when reading any acknowledgement of the late President’s humanity and dignity. As Frank Bruni points out, nuance is lost. This extreme polarization when discussing the passing of a national leader shows me that we better redouble our efforts to develop the first robot to be president because no human being will ever appease the warring factions we have become.
I personally was not impressed by how the late President Bush conducted his political campaigns or how he handled many domestic issues while he was in charge. But that disagreement did not blind me to acknowledging and celebrating his success as leader on the global stage.
Compared to what we’re seeing in the current WH occupant, whatever failings late President Bush demonstrated during his only term in office pale in comparison. It is not that I’m deluded by fondly reminiscing about a past era by simply whitewashing it’s imperfections. No, it is acknowledging that even with all his imperfections, late President Bush towers as a man over the immoral being currently in charge of our destiny as a nation.
1
Frank, you doth protest too much. H.W. Bush was not a great man. Nicer than Trump and less aggressive than his son, but with a record of war crimes a mile long. There is now an entrenched view that anyone who isn't Trump is wonderful. Ain't true.
3
I have a serious objection to the whole tenor of this piece as well as to the headline, George Bush and the Obituary Wars. If giving more than just unending praise to this ex-president, if mentioning qualities and actions that were less than wonderful, is war -- well then what does that say about Mr. Bruni?
"Shades of gray" went out when the Republicans, with their bumper-sticker approach to complex issues, came in. Lecture them, Mr. Bruni.
1
There’s actually a very easy and straightforward moral to this story: just stay far away from Twitter...
2
...or we can stop measuring popular opinion via Twitter.
Twitter is not a litmus test for progressive loyalty. Twitter is a platform of nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. At its best it is a 21st-century telegram that mines personal information from its users. At its worst it is an angry mob. We give it power by choice. Stop paying attention to it.
George H. W. Bush has died. Stop. He had a long and eventful life. Stop. My condolences to his family and friends. Stop.
2
I agree with Bruni. I voted against the elder Bush four times (as Reagan's VP, and as President). His 1988 campaign was reprehensible.
Yet his presidency was a mixture. Certain of his decisions were right. It seemed to me that he was essentially an old style moderate Republican, struggling to govern in a party increasingly right-wing. He rightly called Reaganomics "Voodoo Economics". In 1990, he did the responsible, adult thing on deficits; he struck a deal with the Democratic Congress to reduce the deficit with a mixture of tax increases and spending reductions (a path Clinton would pursue, leading to surpluses). For this, Bush was attacked by his own party. Pat Buchanan led a revolt which helped ensure Bush's defeat.
The Republican Party of Gerald Ford, Howard Baker, and George H. W. Bush is defunct. It's the Buchanan/Gingrich/Trump party now. Trump is essentially Pat Buchanan with less education and more money.
I can respect those like Bush with whom I often disagreed. And at a time when a person passes, yes we should emphasize the positive. (Although when the current president shuffles off this mortal coil, I think silence is all I will be able to manage.) There will be time for historians to add up the pros & cons of Bush's career later.
Social media seems to encourage thinking in absolutes - a bad habit.
3
This is an excellent and much-needed survey of a national problem that may be graver than we imagine. Thank you particularly for this:
"A person can find Christine Blasey Ford credible, believe that Brett Kavanaugh lacks the temperament for the Supreme Court and also worry about a pile-on against him that laid waste to the concepts of due process and presumption of innocence. But the public battle lines were drawn in a way that left little room for that."
My sentiments exactly, on all points. That case serves to warn us that impatiently brushing aside nuance, complexity, and procedure can be not just recklessly harsh to others but also self-isolating; hardly a triumph if we (liberals) aim to build a broad demand for social justice. Our less politicized neighbors understand that the pursuit of justice is inseparable from rigorous judgement of one's own conduct, and we'd better understand it ourselves.
If we sharply divide our political world between friends and enemies, the only future we can reasonably expect is one of endless, degrading trench warfare waged with diminishing strength and social legitimacy as ideological unreliables are driven out.
Politics without nuance, compassion, and a degree of humility is too hard on Them, it's too hard on Us, and it's too hard on the very social fabric that we should be working to strengthen.
3
Understanding we live in a grey world is a mark of adulthood. If we look inward, we can see our own lives as both good and bad. Common sense (which is far from common) allows us to see our orchids and onions also exist within everyone else.
And with that understanding, we can begin a path to forgiveness both for others and for ourselves alloyed with a renewed commitment to work more for the good side of our character and our actions.
Encomiums on a death serve to encourage us all to do better tomorrow than we did yesterday by recognizing the successes of the departed ones.
4
The American brand has been regarded for centuries as possessing strong assertiveness and resolve. Thinking issues well and through enough before acting has been the main problem — a problem of process. Executive branches changing from an individual personality focus to odd-numbered councils could be part of that solution.
Yet George Bush’s introverted personality was almost immune to that common blind spot shared by several types of leaders — the rushing or the rushing to decide. (Those other leaders might even rush to put his image on Mount Rushmore.)
The “nuance”-seeking trend of the past decade or so is a strange detour from the assertive and resolute US brand. Perhaps it’s merely an counterbalance to a large majority of the population holding clear judgment preferences. But since 2016 moderate to liberal leaders and writers might be careful as to not let “nuance” infatuation parallel or merge with the populists’ obfuscation trend.
If you worked closely with college students, as I have for 25 years, you would understand better the problem Frank Bruni is describing here. The hallmark of a critical thinking education--the ability to hold two competing ideas in your head, assess them, and (if both are valid) try to see the complex reality that encompasses them--is just not a skill that most people can grasp or value. Many other priorities have intruded.
6
It would appear that some of us educated thirty-five or forty years ago also forgot or never obtained critical thinking skills. I’ve long believed why such skills should be taught in the fourth or fifth grade. Then I recall the Texas State School Board not long ago decried teaching critical thinking to youngsters undermines their respect for authority. How said so many Americans continue to fear reason.
3
The administrations of Reagan and GHW Bush represent the first GOP water ripples of the current Trump GOP tidal wave that has swept over us all to the nation's determent.
The "swamp" has been amply supplied as a result.
Reagan and Bush gave us trickster Lee Atwater and his Willie Horton concoction and trickster Karl Rove and the adolescent presence and behavior of "W" Bush.
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld got their start in the above noted administrations.
The installation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court was an insult to the nation, to the judiciary at large, and to women as an entity as well - not just to Anita Hill alone.
GHWB always had a dynasty plan in mind when it came to his offspring - especially "W" Bush.
(We'll make a man of him yet. We'll make him president.)
His representative Bob Teeter was sent to consult with George Schultz to promote "W" for president.
The rest is history and "W" was more than just a disappointment and in more ways than one.
(Thankfully the dynasty issue has come to a well-deserved end- possibly the only issue for which we can thank Trump.)
Other issues have been well-covered in this forum's comments and need not be repeated..
7
Frank, great column! And you’re absolutely right, nuance has been lost.....on both sides.
The 500-plus comments prove it. Each person is repeating their political points again and again and again.
I didn’t vote for Bush Sr. I voted for Dukakis and Clinton.
But I still mourn the loss of President Bush. He did a lot of good things; he made a lot of mistakes. In his core, a good soul.
5
Litmus tests don't produce shades of gray; as long as voters are dependent on single-issue agendas, whether the issue is gun ownership or abortion, gerrymandering or "Dreamers," the lines are too sharp to produce shades of gray--or reasonable accommodation to the need to compromise.
3
Excellent editorial. A very thoughtful way to push people to consider the whole of a person’s actions or character instead of the exceptions one does not agree with. And, may I add, the reality of politics dictates that not all issues can be acted upon. A prime example is Obama’s lack of ability to pass gun control. I would never measure him solely on the basis of not doing enough on this important issue.
5
@Brian I agree with your premise about considering the entire picture BUT the example of Obama and gun control isn't a good one because he WANTED to pass it - he TRIED to pass it and was prevented from doing so so it wouldn't be fair to judge him harshly because of that action but yes, we should look at a person's record in it's totality as we will do with Trump where it's ALL bad.
6
Yeah because what’s really been missing from the public discourse has been positive stuff about Bush those last couple days. Right.
2
Oh, please, Frank, the “obituary wars?” Really? Because some of us take issue with history? Willie Horton, “No new taxes,” looking at his watch during a debate, as if addressing issues important to the American people were beneath him, his stance on abortion, agreeing with Reagan on his Southern strategy by default, and on and on and on. I may not say what the resident of the White House said about McCain but I’m also not shedding tears for Bush. Let’s not forget, he hired Lee Atwater knowing full well who Atwater was. And that comment about Trump? I expect better from you, Frank, but I’ve been disappointed before.
6
I think what bothers me most about the whitewashing of Bush's actual record is less about Bush himself and more what these mind-numbing tributes say about the people who make them. We can hardly blame ordinary people for feeling that the Beltway politicians and media have little insight into their lives - it's all about protecting the insiders, even after death, as was the case with Reagan's passing - I had to turn off the television because of the week-long orgy of fawning and obsequiousness that constituted the coverage. Bush's policies did a lot of damage to the lives of ordinary people all over the globe and there is nothing wrong with pointing this out when encountering one fairy tale obituary after another.
11
Pappy Bush wanted kinder and gentler, but had little idea how to bring these about except by personal example. Given what was happening in and to his party, kinder and gentler had to be fought for; the unkind and ungentle had to be defeated, and that would take a war. Obama had much the same problem, and also did not go to war.
In a war, shades of gray are a weakness. The troops fight better when the enemy is dehumanized and demonized. But once victory is achieved (and victory will often involve occupation), the shades of gray must be quickly restored for the occupation to be successful and for the war not to lead eventually and inevitably to another.
War has been declared on our founding principles, so we are in fact at war. This gives us the right to respond in any way that will be successful, and which ways are successful is a tactical rather than an ethical question.
1
@sdavidc9 Great line!
''The troops fight better when the enemy is dehumanized and demonized.''
Thus, the well-funded blogs and angry news writers on the Left teach progressives to live full of hatred, fury, and jealousy.
"But too many of us tend to interpret events, political figures and issues in all-or-nothing, allies-or-enemies, black-and-white terms, blind to shades of gray." Here in Tokyo I watched CNN's Anderson Cooper as he "reported" on Trump's attendance at Bush's casket side. Cooper and his guest had no news to report so they speculated on what Trump might be thinking as he saluted the deceased President's casket. Cooper came up with the idea that Trump must be wondering how long he had to pretend to care, how long he had to salute, how soon to could get out of there, and so on. No evidence was provided for these conjectures. Cooper could just as well have said that Trump was wondering what he would have for lunch, or how he could best serve Bush's memory, or what he might give his wife for her birthday. In other words, it is anyone's guess what Trump was thinking and it was clear that Cooper's sole purpose was to make the President look bad even when he is showing respect to a former President by honorably saluting his casket. It is all about sneering and smearing and this is called news. Dear Mr. Bruni, restoring your profession's lost honor is what I would consider making my business.
4
Grey is OK. My limited knowledge of him leaves me to think that he was a decent man.He was born into privilege, lived in that privilege and probably didn't have an understanding of ordinary Americans. His presidency helped some and hurt others.He served in World War ll and for that he deserves credit. My dad and uncles also served. He was shot down over the Pacific and rescued I'm glad he was.Lot of American pilots were shot down over the Pacific some were rescued others weren't, I don't know their names. I think he was a lucky man.
5
The administrations of Reagan and GHW Bush represent the first GOP water ripples of the current Trump GOP tidal wave that has swept over us all to the nation's determent.
The "swamp" has been amply supplied as a result.
Reagan and Bush gave us trickster Lee Atwater and his Willie Horton concoction and trickster Karl Rove and the adolescent presence and behavior of "W" Bush.
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld got their start in the above noted administrations.
The installation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court was an insult to the nation, to the judiciary at large, and to women as an entity as well - not just to Anita Hill alone.
GHWB always had a dynasty plan in mind when it came to his offspring - especially "W" Bush.
(We'll make a man of him yet. We'll make him president.)
His representative Bob Teeter was sent to consult with George Schultz to promote "W" for president.
The rest is history and "W" was more than just a disappointment and in more ways than one.
(Thankfully the dynasty issue has come to a well-deserved end- possibly the only issue for which we can thank Trump.)
Other issues have been well-covered in this forum's comments and need not be repeated.
6
Bush '41 is often described as the youngest naval aviator in WWII despite the fact that he was the lone survivor of three crewmembers when the aircraft he piloted was shot down in the South Pacific. He and Barbara had six children including four able-bodied sons; none served in active-duty military. Family connections landed George W. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard, thus avoiding deployment to Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. No military service for Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, or Marvin Bush. Two Commander-in Chiefs in the immediate family, but no military service in combat during four wars: Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq.
8
Just sharing a thought: it seems to me that we are all longing so to experience genuine emotion, and long for heroes as we learn, daily, of the clay feet of so many of our political leaders and other public figures -- that we NEED these over-the-top spectacles, such as McCain's and Bush's funerals, just to make us feel good about ourselves, and our country, for a little while...
4
Nuance?? We have spent the time since Trump came down the elevator in Trump Tower to throw his hat in the ring with a total absence of nuance. The death of GHW Bush is nothing but a reminder of another time in our history to which most wish to return. I think it's the press more than the public who are waking up like Snow White in her coffin from the kiss of the prince, in the guise of a deceased former president. Overnight, nuance is back. Let's hope the press keeps reminding us of its importance and fit in our political lives.
2
Kavanugh was a singularly bad illustration for Bruni to pick in making has case for shades of gray.
Kavanaugh was not in a court of law - which, unfortunately he now is - and therefore not entitled to a presumption of innocence. He was on a job interview, and questioning his fitness for the job was not "piling on", especially after he demonstrated his unfitness with his disgraceful behavior at the hearing.
Bruni needs to understand that some shades of gray are much darker than others. That's particularly true in our politics today, and the "better place" that he says he pines for cannot be arrived at as long as one side in particular continues driving us in the wrong direction. Yet that's the side he leans over backwards to defend, while giving it a pass on its excesses.
10
Maybe most of us would agree that George H.W. Bush's virtues as a human being were greater than his actions as a candidate for President and then his achievements after having won the office. If we have a consensus on that, it is not hard to see why so many of us are inclined to remember him fondly at this moment, when his life stands in stark contrast to what currently occupies the Oval Office.
In the era of Trump, I feel starved for the virtues exhibited by Mr. Bush and other past presidents. I hunger for decency, honesty, humility, courage, grace and caring. I am so hungry right now that I do not care about keeping score.
7
There is an algorithm that can be used to evaluate a person's life:
First, specify x as a variable from 1 to n. Pick out what you think is the best thing that a person did, and compare it with the worst thing. For Bush 41, I'd choose Desert Storm as the best, and Willie Horton as the worst, and in my judgment his best outweighed his worst. And stop right there. If I came to the opposite conclusion, I'd stop there. Only if I couldn't decide which way to balance it would I go to a second example.
Second, there has to be a deadline. Something so bad that nothing would compensate it. Here I'll use Nixon. I think the best thing he did was open the door to dealing with China, but he crossed the deadline by sabotaging the Paris Peace talks in 1968 which meant that thousands more Americans and Vietnamese would die in a war that could have been stopped, but Nixon and Kissinger decided that it would help him get elected if the Johnson/Humphrey administration couldn't stop the fighting before the election.
It's how Division I football teams admit star footballers. A kid who is a gifted athlete is admitted with a lower academic potential than a relatively undistinguished extracurricular profile.
But he has to be able to spell "cat" and count above 20.
2
In attempting to be fair, even handed, this column...goes...to...far.
It says, "Trump, in elevating Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, didn’t commit some treachery or abuse his office."
Well, yes he did, to some degree. Supreme Court appointments should not be about insuring ideological purity, nor should they be carefully manipulated to create a court favorable to a minority of American citizens, particularly the rich who have enough going for them at present.
Abuse of office? The whole process of trying to, brick by brick, make an ideologically pure high court is an abuse. Besides, Trump, as a president supported by a minority of those who voted, should be governing with modesty and restraint, fully realizing that "his side" did not win the election, the Electoral College handed it to him. (Modesty in thought, action or words is not in the realm of the possible with Trump, of course.)
G.W. Bush, put into office by a messed up process in 2000, should have, even more so, sought to include a much wider spectrum of views in considering his actions. If we had presidents who appreciated the entirety of the needs and desires of the public, we could reduce rancid partisanship to a small, burnt out ash in history's waste pile. Instead, we have people who have repeatedly pledge ideological purity, virtual purges of any other course or compromise, to win election.
Shameful. Disgusting. Ultimately self defeating for democracy because people will conclude they cannot live with this.
8
Of course, I meant to type "goes too far" in the opening line of this comment.
Next to last line in the next to last paragraph: "pledged".
The rush of commentary praising George H.W. Bush reminds us all that the nation once had a time when partisanship was not the be all and end all of life. Those who breathe fire at their opponents, who dream of a day when everything in our democracy will be run only as they see fit, are actually playing a destructive game that can only end in tragedy. Compromise, representing the acceptance and respect for the views of others, is a basic, inescapable requirement for living in a large, democratic nation. If the rabid partisan hacks get their way, we can not survive over the coming decades.
1
This raises some excellent issues for reformation.
Who cares if someone lost followers in Twitter?
Let's stop pretending that any sort of prestige is associated with one's number of followers. How superficial can we get?
8
Bingo! Too many Americans are stuck in one man’s mood cycle let alone their designated algorithm.
Bruni praises G.W Bush for having "fulfilled campaign pledges and reminded us that elections have consequences."
Yes, he "reminded us that elections have consequences". This reminder would be even truer and the more significant if Bush had dropped the big one on Baghdad and murdered millions.
And I guess Bruni would praise him for this reminder too. We should be reminded, and no reminder is too inappropriate to satisfy Bruni, it seems.
As for fulfilling campaign pledges, by the way, what about "No new taxes"?
1
We are not that divided or intellectually lazy or rigid Frank. I think we wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't for the context provided by Individual 1, our current president.
3
Frank Bruni can have his favorable view of President Bush; I can disagree. That doesn't make me bad or evil; I just have a difference of opinion, which I think is a justifiable one. Bruni seems to recognize that President Bush ran one of the most racist campaigns of the modern era, but he doesn't seem to understand why, for some of us, that would be too great a sin to overlook.
11
He is not asking you to overlook it, he is asking that, along with the sins, can you identify any blessings? If not, that is black or white thinking.
1
Oh, how I sometimes long for those old days, when, to respond to an article or editorial in the NY Times and other papers, you had to write a "Letter to The Editor." There was no Twitter or other social media.
As I recall, the Times had a 150 word limit or something like that. I got one published after several tries and this was many years ago. Then I quit.
Things have changed, of course, and not necessarily for the better. Aside from reader comments, now you have Twitter and other platforms, where, unlike the Times comments which are moderated, anything goes and even a harmless Tweet about Bush 41 generates visceral responses. Sad indeed.
Hard to put the genie back in the bottle, I suppose.
2
I agree with Mr. Bruni that we can't forget Mr. Bush's humanity, and that there is something politically healthy about remembering our leaders in full. That being said, most of the veneration that I've seen hasn't been about remembering Bush in full, it's about inflating the past with a happy aura of political compromise and diplomacy that it never truly possessed. It brings a comfortable feeling, no doubt, but it's also a disavowal of the relationship between the past of the republican party and its horrifying present.
5
Maybe this is the start of a trend, the media recognizing they have as much responsibility for the lack of civility in our treatment of those we disagree. All of us own it, including #45 but the 24/7 criticism of everything contemplated by the GOP only provokes a reaction, and it’s never good. One country!!
1
Thank you! Well said. Everyone tends to hyperventilate these days. All issues worth examining are complicated and nuanced. It’s hard work wrestling with problems and few people have the stomach for it.
3
In order to discover a better place, look objectively in the mirror and discard all bias if only for a moment. Comprehend the axiom that change is the only constant and certainty of perspective drifts away effortlessly, replaced not by uncertainty, but awareness without the baggage of political ideology and all it limits and obscures by replacing fear with naked truth.
Take the plunge to restoration and rejuvenation. It merely takes a momentary glimpse of a reflection and a thousand points of light begin to glimmer softly.
Although I have a bone to chew for republican lack of courage to face the truth, let alone defend it if partisan loyalty is called for, there are good things in all of us, flawed and imperfect beings that we are. 'Whosoever is free of faults, throw the first stone'. I see there are no takers. As it should.
Here's the thing, Frank. McCain and George HW Bush was courageous in wartime. He loved his family and our country, I have no doubt. They had their good points and their flaws, just like you and me and everyone who's ever lived.
But the President of the United States is not like everyone else. In their political capacities, they have the opportunity and the obligation to do more, to be more, to lead better.
Given the chance to help those less fortunate than himself (he was a rich, white men who never wanted for anything) Bush chose to favor corporations and the wealthy over children, the elderly, the sick, the poor, the homeless, and the middle class Americans he claimed to represent.
George Bush was backside-deep in Watergate as head of the RNC. (Nixon remarking that George will do as he's told.) He went along with Reagan's crazed spending after coining the phrase "voodoo economics." He pardoned everyone in Iran-Contra to save RR's and his own skin. He allowed Lee Atwater to run with the Willie Horton ads. AIDS.
I'm glad he was a good grandfather. I'm glad he loved his wife and sorry they lost a child to cancer. Those same things can be said about most people. But those "regular guy" aspects of his life do not balance the scale against the damage and pain and hardship he delivered upon others. He chose to work for people like him - who already have everything - and ignored those in need and those without voices. As president, that is his legacy.
24
@Paula Callaghan Excellent post, thank you. I particularly appreciate your last three sentences.
2
The elitist nature is within each of the ISTJ personality type. Even the Vladster who came from a modest background grew up to connect with and protect a small group of elites at all costs. The select group to associate with is inherent in the personality.
1
George H.W. Bush is dead, but Clarence Thomas is still with us. Sorry, but that´s all the nuance I can manage right now.
13
Ok, Frank. Just one compound question: who is Bryan Behar and why is this news?
3
Just because you die, you are not entitled to a rewrite of your life.
The stains on Bush are not minor, they are monumental legacy debasing screw ups. Good riddance.
Just wait till they try to cleanse the record of his incompetent son.
6
In episode 4 of Rachel Maddow's podcast, "Bag Man," which delves into the investigation which brought down Spiro Agnew, Ms. Maddow uncovers yet another of George the Elder's misdeeds.
Among the Nixon tapes, there is a telephone call between Nixon and Haig about how they can stop U.S. attorney George Beall's prosecution of Agnew. They hatch a plan get to Beall is through Beall's brother, Senator J. Glenn Beall.
From the episode transcript: "U.S. Attorney George Beall ended up donating his papers to Frostburg State University in Maryland. And if you go to those archives, you can now see an official “memo-to-file” that U.S. Attorney George Beall wrote that Summer of 1973. In that memo to file, it is made quite clear that after the White House came up with this plan, George H.W. Bush did, in fact, contact U.S. Senator Glenn Beall and he tried to have Senator Glenn Beall get word to his little brother the U.S. Attorney about this investigation."
George H.W. Bush, then chairman of the GOP, attempted to obstruct justice on behalf of the Nixon administration.
Still want to talk about Bush's "decency?"
5
Majority of people do not have informed opinions, because thoughtful ones are hard and unsatisfactorily messy in the end. Social media panders to the least attentive parts of ourselves. Any part of us that chooses expressing over listening gets turned-on on social media.. Poorly substantiated positions that we can repeatedly defend with the minimal thought get maximum traction there. Followers on social-media are an accumulation of the side of us that thrives on our most trigger happy, popularity craving instincts. We attribute too much wisdom to our social followers, when in reality they could be the least deliberating and yet most judgemental sides of ourselves. Followers get their kicks un-following. It is the laziest way to show disagreement, while falsely feeling empowered. Let them.
3
I also support Bryan Behar. Good Lord, have we become so trapped in our bile that we cannot express an ounce of human empathy for anyone on the other side of the aisle, even in death?
Mr. Bruni mentions "Americans’ diminishing ability to hold two thoughts at once." This is certainly something to worry about, especially in light of the president's inability to hold even one thought at a time.
6
If I were to judge George (41) Bush, it would be that he was fundamentally a good person, who believed in service to his country. But, his political career path is the classic conundrum of does the end justify the means? Was his desire for winning the ultimate prize worth subjugating his basic instincts, and the collateral damage that it caused? Would we have been better off with Michael Dukakis? We'll never know. He was right about one thing though - Reagonomics (and by association Republican economics)was, and still is voodoo economics.
3
Many aspects of the 41st president's legacy aren't making it into mainstream media coverage. GHWBush is responsible for much of the endless war and terror that continues to escalate around the globe. This article doesn't even mention Bush's "Desert Storm" or the Iran/Contra scandal. So few Americans including the media, really care about foreign policy and the thousands of deaths caused by our senseless wars.
Of the many egregious things Bush 1 did, waging war on an Arab state (and ally at the time), was a hugely disastrous and tragic mistake.
In typical two-faced US fashion, Saddam Hussein was essentially given a green light by our ambassador at the time to invade Kuwait, thus giving the US a pretext to invade Iraq and thereby secure access to Kuwait and Iraq's oil. https://billmoyers.com/.../the-first-iraq-war-was-also.../
8
@Leah Sirkin.
pasting full article re: 1st Gulf War does anyone have a memory? disaster of the century!
https://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-first-iraq-war-was-also-sold-to-the-public-based-on-a-pack-of-lies/?fbclid=IwAR2CvDkgWhTf8wl_UBhTF_6qRdKEqNgg-8UmTohA6mIhQoMQg5JkqxUuUQg
3
"A person can deplore Trump’s recklessly inflammatory characterizations of illegal immigration and treatment of migrants while acknowledging that secure borders are a legitimate concern. But that’s not an analysis I hear often on cable news."
Ridiculous. MSNBC and CNN consistently give precisely this analysis. Fox News simply joins in Trump's recklessly inflammatory characterizations of immigration, legal and not.
False equivalency is still as false as ever. And as prevalent.
7
The issue is one of timing. President Bush had the unfortunate (fortunate?) temerity to die in the middle of a huge societal shift. We, (the nonwhite, non-male, non-straight, non-native born, the proverbial "other" etc) have simply JUST HAD IT UP TO HERE with the pinstriped socked wingtip shoe that seems to permanently rest upon our collective necks.
It doesn't matter that President Bush's socks were not pinstriped, (in fact, his socks were often colorful.) It just matters that on one end was a wingtip and on the other the leg of a very white, very privileged, very straight alpha male. The issue for most of us is that in the era of BLM, #metoo, Trump and kids in cages, our adrenal glands are in outrage overdrive.
Once upon a time, we might have overlooked his racial blindness. Once upon a time, I might overlook your occasional misogyny. Once upon a time, I might let a homophobic, or racist, or bigoted comment fly-- even when the inadvertent arrow was targeted right at me and my loved ones. Which was too often as it was.
That was then, and this is now, and now our outrage has frothed to the top and our cuppeth has runneth over.
Which admittedly is a huge problem. For if we replace the wing-tip shoe on our necks with an equally huge chip in our collective shoulders, aren't we weighted down just the same?
So how to reconcile these two realities?
Slowly. Gingerly. Sensitively. Thoughtfully.
.....and over time.
6
There is no whitewashing Bush's legacy. And no need. He was real and flawed and successful.
How strange that as media (broadcast, social etc.) shows us more and more of the human imperfections of public individuals, we seem to tolerate them less and less.
2
1. Miserable response to the AIDS Crisis
2. Undermined the constitution with respect to his involvement in Iran/Contra AND pardoned its participants.
3. Started the Gulf War and plunged the United States into a perpetual state of ware since his presidency.
That's what failure looks like. You all can wax nostalgic about what a gentleman he was, but from where I'm standing he's a monster and no better than Trump.
8
@James Perez
They lied us into that Gulf War as well with the fake baby killing testimony in front of congress.
Iraq was a client whom we gave permission to invade Quait. Bush got cold feet from after an argument with Thatcher about BP's holdings and how they'd be damaged by the invasion.
1
I use the obituaries of Winston Churchill as a benchmark, and in that measure, there are few individuals who merited the accolades -- and criticisms -- that were Churchill's life.
He was a singularly great man, but tragically flawed. Churchill's racism towards India, and his overt colonial arrogance in both World Wars cost the lives of thousands upon thousands. Yet he stood virtually alone in opposition to Hitler and fascism, understood the threat of communism, and was clear-eyed and sober and realizing that Britain's future would by necessity be over-shadowed by the emerging United States.
Very few modern Presidents, other than FDR, had the brilliant foresight and inexcusable short-sightedness of Churchill. Yet over time, the ability of these men to help shape the future sets them apart from other, lesser, mortals.
I wish George HW Bush godspeed. He was no FDR or, for that matter, Reagan, but we could have had much, much worse, and now we do.
2
After Obama, I think George H.W. Bush’s official portrait at the National Gallery (the image for this article) is the best modern presidential portrait.
1
This column brings up a problem we have in our society. Many of us think only in black and white. There is no color, no nuance. You either love or you hate. Forgiveness is not something often practiced. What a terrible way to live. If people are so hard on others, how do they see themselves? Do they see the good and bad? Or are they saints pointing out the sinners?
5
The way-over-the-top gauzy reviews about McCain and now Bush are there to serve only one purpose. They are just another platform to attack Trump. The McCain eulogy-orgy was truly nauseating.
5
I despise trump. He is not my president. But I agree with you 100% and more. Thanks for your blunt statement.
I could not agree more. It so oftren seems that once a person dies she/he become persons of unblemished lives. Which, for any human, is not only not true, but impossible.
3
I agree with this piece .
2
I'm sorry Frank, but you just don't seem to "get it".
Want to explore why "ultra-progressives" or whomever you're referring to, are mad and/or upset with coverage such as has been airing recently on the Opinion pages of the Times?
Read your U.S. History.
Better yet, watch the Oscar winning documentary: "The Panama Deception", directed by Barbara Trent. (A woman!)
4
I learned alot about the American psyche in high scoll when I read Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter". We love our innocence and ignore our shadows, but not those of our fellows.
1
Frank, is that you? I was all set to rip into you for something but---I've got nothing this time. Very nicely done, man!
3
Thanks be to The New York Times for employing and approving a variety of Opinion writers/columnists. Here, Frank Bruni provides a healthy fix to the hangover we readers suffer from reading a colleague or two.
2
I agree, which is why I am in line right now at the Capitol Visitors center.
2
I find the Far Left to be as obnoxious as the Far Right.— BTW Mr. Bruni: you were a constant critic of Hillary Clinton— you never found “ gray “ with Hillary. So, I’m sorry that I don’t believe or trust you.
4
Wonderful piece, thank you Frank.
its sad to see the hatred on one side, and canonization on the other, driven, I guess, by idealogy.
1
They might be worth losing. On the other hand, those people followed him once. TIme to think about that.
It’s. It that we forgot nobody is perfect.....rather that we have become lazy and unwilling to confront complexity..life is
not good or bad..it is complex. Bush did well in a very complex environment and also comported himself with a degree of humility and dignity rarely seen today
3
There is a sad irony in the coverage of the deaths of John McCain and George H W Bush. The mainstream media despised Bush and McCain for decades lavishing ultra harsh criticism of everything these men said and did. But now that they've departed for the better place the mainstream media cant find enough glowing adjectives to describe their accomplishments when they were in office.
Hindsight is always 2020. From Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump Republican presidents have had huge problems dealing with the mainstream media. To the mainstream media the only good Republican is a dead Republican.
2
@sharon5101
Perhaps that is because most of the good ones ARE dead?
1
Despised them? Au contraire, neither would have thrived without mainstream media adoration. Now Hillary? She is the politician the media picked at with the ferocity of vultures.
1
The simple truth is that the record of just about every American politician now looks much better in death since Trump took office. I assume the Germans ran into the same situation after World War II.
1
Goodbye and farewell, David Cop-a-feel.
Was the Willy Horton campaign ad really that much different than Trump calling all Central Americans criminals? Was the pardoning of those convicted or indicted for the Iran-Contra weapons exchange any different from Trump choosing as Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta who helped a serial rapist escape adequate punishment? Was Clarence Thomas being supported by the Bush administration even after Anita Hill testified any different than the Brett Kavanaugh nomination pushed through the Senate by the Trump White House even after Christine Blasey Ford's credible testimony?
5
To be Left, every time, all the time, no matter the circumstances, must be a terrible burden. It certainly is predictable and mildly amusing.
4
@DEH
And how is that different from being "Right" every time?
3
Bush Sr. allowed the completion and takeover of the Conservative Party begun in the Reagan era by Insane Overzealous Religious Right Radicals. Look where that got us.
8
I really wish NYTimes columnists would stop using Twitter as a means to gauge public opinion. It's always full of ranting and emotion and rarely has room for measured thought. This is not a valid way to measure what most people are thinking. While I will read this column to the end, you lost me when you referenced Twitter.
4
George H. W. Bush raised his son, George W., who also became president, and that is no small, insignificant feat. There is no implied praise in that statement either. George W. displayed during his time in public office a conspicuous lack of regard for human life, both during his term as governor of Texas where more people were executed than in any other time in the history of the state and while he was president where his choice response to the crimes of 9/11 was to inflict mass destruction and death on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because they were Muslim. Before he was elected the first time the British press described him, in large type banner headlines as "Deadly". The fiasco of Hurricane Katrina was his doing where at least 1800 people died partially because the federal response was deliberately sabotaged at the highest levels in Washington DC. If George W. accomplished anything for this country he certainly didn't mind a few, or several, dead bodies along the way. His crafted public image was one of "decency", a facade barely concealing his cold and deadly regard for those not in his social milieu.
George H.W. Bush is a perfect example of why the people who wrote our constitution and formulated our government limited the term of office for president to four years. Even the most gentlemanly of statesmen are corrupted by the powers and exigencies of the office.
5
That was probably the best column I've read in 2018. I agree with every single sentence. Thank you.
5
In the era of Trump, every past president looks like a decent and honorable person. Even Nixon looks better in comparison. The polarization makes disagreements turn into dislike and hate in hurry.
Both political parties have no use for moderation and common sense anymore. Let's hope this too shall pass.
2
Behar’s readership sounds like it is worth unfriending.
We are all flawed human beings.
Are we not?
3
Sure, it's a sign of our tribal times, but most of all it's a sign of the toxicity of Twitter. Twitter and nuance do not go together, especially when you're limited to 280 characters.
Social media doesn't just make you depressed and angry--it also makes you dumb.
5
I suspect the New York Times dislikes the fact that some people refuse to accept George Bush as a saint, which I think he never was. Too bad.
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/04/george-h-w-bush-the-inconvenient-truth/
8
No one's totally perfect, no one's totally imperfect. Yet some people will always be more perfect or imperfect than others.
In the cases of George H.W. Bush and Donald Trump, the former example applies to the former example while the latter applies to the latter (whose record is still less than 2 dog years old).
Regardless, the snarkiness Mr. Bruni identifies is simply an example of our current state of societal culture wherein instant gratification conflates with narcissism to produce a no-win situation for everyone.
Unfortunately, this condition is bipartisan and, should the Democrats continue to embrace their part in it, they surely will have to suffer the consequences through 2024 as they'll have given Trump and his hypocritical, cowardly acolytes enough ammo to sink any chances of saving what's left of our country's democratic future.
Since when did one guy posting a thing on Twitter and a bunch of other people freaking out about the thing turn into a reflection of anything, much less anything about American politics? Other than the fact that everyone needs to stop spending so much time on Twitter.
7
The media's bending over backwards over McCain and Poppy Bush is enough to make me vomit and I am not a Democrat. This is a democracy- not a monarchy.
These were career politicians who died a natural death. It is one thing to have an extended mourning over a Kennedy or Lincoln that was the victim of an assassin, but something else to go all crazy over the natural death of a politician.
10
Frank Bruni, you continue to impress me. Very thoughtful piece.
3
When we fight each other to the death, we'll all be dead.
1
you do right not to follow him on twit. why follow anyone on twit. It demeans the sender and unlightens the sendee.
What happened to shades of gray? Frank, look no further than the very paper for which you write. While still more intellectual than most, the once responsible NYT has morphed into the snooty Fox News of the left, replete with lurid and provocative headlines that clickbait the key target audiences (urban white women, etc.) into a click... and another click... and another...
6
Don't look to the NY Times Opinion columnist to save us as we slide into fascism, and climate change destroys our habitat while this guy goes on and on lecturing
about "complexity" and "nuance."
How do you like your fascism served up?
9
Bruni after all is the guy who reported like he was the buddy of George W.
Part of the problem not part of the solution.
The tell is the whole shades-of-grey, where-did-good manners-go sob story.
George W. Left America weaker because that idiotic war on false pretenses that Bruni has no problem with.
H W stepped up national race politics to ten with the Willie Horton ads. And the Anita Hill smear was his. The disgusting moment of Alan Simpson leering with his hand held to show he had the goods in his suit coat pocket. Same Simpson who will speak for H W. Trump had the courage and breeding to take ignorant racism to eleven and beyond that the Bushes did not.
Legacy baby. There are dark dark greys you know.
So where is your reporting on these evil episodes Bruni? I missed it.
7
We progressives can be just as mean spirited as conservatives. Like the Bushes, the Brunis and the Behars we are human.
That said, I think we are paying far to much attention to the haters of various political stripes. Let those who pitched a fit about GHW being praised in spite of his faults pitch their fits in private.
In other words, let's be like Bush not Trump.
2
If I may, I'd like to produce here an open letter published in today's Denver Post from former US Senator Gary Hart (the subject of an upcoming movie):
On a Wednesday morning in the U.S. Senate in February 1984, I was casting a close vote on the B-1 bomber, as I recall, and Vice President George H. W. Bush was in the presiding officer’s chair to cast the deciding vote if necessary.
Bush beckoned to me at my back row seat as the clerk was calling the roll. The night before my campaign for the Democratic nomination for president had scored a somewhat stunning upset in the New Hampshire primary.
“That was amazing what you did last night,” he whispered as the press gallery eagerly looked down on this scene. He wanted to know the next contest and I told him the Maine caucuses were coming in a week or two.
“Barb and I have a house in Maine and you’re welcome to use it while you’re campaigning there,” he said.
Stunned, I politely reminded him that, in effect, I was campaigning, indirectly, for his job and that it might cause him an awkward situation.
The lesson: instinctively he put hospitality over politics. That was Mr. Bush.
Gary Hart
8
@Marc The issue isn't whether or not the guy might have been a good neighbor, been a nice guy to have a drink with, bought you lunch one day, or gave you a ride. Those issues are not pertinent. The issues are his ethics and decisions as a government leader.
2
The media at the time reviled Bush all the time. He didn't know what a scanner for purchases was, he threw up at a dinner, he was a war monger, etc., etc. You never would have known that Bush was a great man and statesman at the time and yes, he made some serious misjudgments.
Now they report like Bush was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Of course they now have Trump to compare to, so Bush looks pretty good in retrospect.
2
Let’s face it. With the current political situation, even the lesser lights seem saintly. If Maureen Dowd can be friends with the senior president Bush in spite of political and Op-Ed differences, so can we.
2
The outpouring over Bush is tedious to say the least and nauseating to say the most.
10
It is insulting to be constantly assumed to be stupid enough to be susceptible to the brainwash that get thrown out there about all our leaders. We are not followers. Will we have to say good things about Trump when he dies? Please talk down to someone else.
7
Bush was a patriot to his class. The over-the-top hagiographies being written about this at-best clueless man are nothing short of embarrassing. Americans are so childlike in wanting to believe in heroes. It's no wonder they fell for the horror that is now upon us and this trait is dangerous. It is up to you and other journalists to give us reality, warts and all, and you've fallen down on the job.
3
At some future time Clinton and Obama will pass away. I’m sure the same ultra liberal NYT voices finding little good to acknowledge about Bush 41 will extol their virtues, magnify their accomplishments and praise to the high heavens their appointments of far out of the mainstream SC justices like Ginsberg and Sotomayor. Just remember there will be millions on the other side who loathe them, find their policies highly objectionable and maybe even worse, and find their SC appointments despicable and destructive to the founders intentions for that body.
5
For all the folks who demand immediate criticism, I look forward to having all your exes eulogize you at your funeral to ensure there's a balanced perspective of how decent you were.
4
The antithesis of tribalism: “…I say to Him, ‘God is it okay to luff strangers?’ And God says to me, ‘Yitzak, vat is dis strangers? You make strangers. I don’t make strangers.’”
2
Can't wait for this Bush love fest to be over and done with.
Personally despise this entire family. Babs was not a very nice person either. Waspy, silver spooners all. Entitled bunch.
13
@Tim. Please be assured there are millions who feel precisely the same revulsion for the Clintons and Obamas...particularly for the always angry, aggrieved Michelle my belle.
3
With all due respect to the dead, let's not forget that Bush provided the precedent for pardoning presidential co-conspirators. Don't be surprised when Trump does the same.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html?_r=1
6
to all the Liberal progressives who can't find an ounce of compassion in their hearts for a man who dedicated his life towards public service please give the following some food for thought. For the likes of me I can't understand the lot of you. You are a conundrum. Below is taken from Wikipedia.
"William R. Horton (born August 12, 1951) is an American convicted felon who, while serving a life sentence for murder (without the possibility of parole),[1] was the beneficiary of a Massachusetts weekend furlough program. He did not return from his furlough, and ultimately committed assault, armed robbery, and rape before being captured and sentenced in Maryland where he remains incarcerated.
Then ask me about compassion.
3
@Margo Channing -- Mr Bush dedicated his life not to public service, but to service of the oil - military-industry complex -- which took a son of the well-connected senator Prescott Bush under its arm, gavaged him with opportunities to make oilpatch money at little personal risk, and then sent him into office as a figurehead for the policies that would transfer as much wealth as possible from the citizenry into the pockets of his owners. Mr Bush came through brilliantly for those whom he served, and betrayed his nation in doing so.
3
Doesn’t a war, obituary or otherwise, have to first be formally declared?
Shades of gray? On Twitter???
The nature of this dumpster fire of an app creates the tribal culture that Bruni decries. It emboldens bullies and encourages shallow discourse and idiotic "feuds" between people who have never met. It makes tiny people who think that un-following someone will make them feel big, as if un-following is some authentic show of power and integrity.
There have always been debates on the legacies of past presidents. But people on Twitter don't debate. They're more like chimps in a cage throwing feces at the wall. The more people who stop using Twitter the more we will find that "better place."
3
A very famous guy that most Americans apparently don’t know once said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” And again, “judge not lest ye be judged.”
We live in a confused time, when the masses disavow the idea of sin, and then crucify everyone with whom they disagree for being a sinner.
Now, all you perfect people, commence casting your stones....
1
Willie Horton can be forgiven. We all know that was Karl Rove making his bones with Gingrich and the conservatives. (How like the mafia Republicans are these days! They need names like Mitch the Macaw.)
Bush did well selecting a moderate like Souter but horribly with conservative partisan Clarence Thomas.
The hard left is just waiting to bring out the guillotine for any who oppose them. Why would you expect them to support a period of mourning? It is not in their nature.
2
Classes Democrats used Bush's death as a way to bash Trump.
Never has there been a more disgusting group of people than today's Leftist
2
Generously overstated.
2
Well said!
1. WWII pilot, 2. Passed the Americans with disabilities Act, 3. Sheparded the Cold War to a peaceful close, 4. Did not get carry away and take the gulf war into Baghdad.
He was a good president and a good man. Anyone who thinks otherwise, who are you comparing him too? Everyone is flawed.
4
By the way. If Michelle Obama can send a very personal and touching photo and tribute to Mr. Bush and cancel her book tour to attend his funeral.....well? Just saying.....
4
Nuance and proportionality is missing terribly in journalism and in our extremely tribal times. Nice job, Bruni.
1
Mr. Bush was a war criminal. His hands were made black with dried blood. That he was never charged, tried and convicted for his crimes merely indicates the defects of our legal systems, not his innocence.
8
I thought the Republicans were bad in the Clinton era, but the hate from the far left is the most destructive force in my lifetime. In fact, I would go further that the far left's "my way or the highway" (or rather "my way or your a racist/bigot/misogynist/xenophobe") attitude of recent years will bring this country to its knees and destroy it.
P.S. I voted Democrat my whole life but do not recognize the "hate machine" (masquerading as a force of tolerance) of the far left Democratic party of today. We are in big trouble. Democrats look in the mirror and change course before its too late for all of us.
6
Bush was a closet Democrat. No Republican would have said "kinder. gentler nation". His mother's lesson on sharing is so Democratic. He must have gotten the Republican cloak from his father. Too bad he couldn't have been who he was.
1
I haven't seen anything resembling hagiography in the NYT's coverage or comment on the death of George H.W. Bush. What I have seen is assessments that are suitably balanced. His courage in war and his prudent management of the collapse of the Soviet empire warrant mention. So do the instances where moral courage failed him, including his acquiescence in the Willie Horton ads or his failure to fight for AIDS funding. A just commentary will take all of these things into account. It will look at the sum of this man's life, not just its parts. Intransigent hatreds come from narrower perspectives and I want no part of them.
3
Bruni is right. There’s only one politician in America who’s all bad.
The solution was for Mr. Bruni to have provided an obituary in keeping with journalistic principals, IN THE FIRST PLACE, rather than public relations principals. Aka, present both good AND bad. I thought journalism was supposed to take a stab at the truth?
The NYT or any other rag is not his eulogy or the content of his memorial program. It is the news. Deference is not expected nor should it be.
I am friends here in Sweden with someone whose family left Chile thanks to Bush Sr. Because they were communists. Had they not left, no doubt they would have been tossed from a helicopter like so many dissidents against American CIA installation of Pinochet...or worse.
I contrast the fate of so many South Americans with a man who got to live a nice long life, surrounded by family and sycophants, it would seem.
Then there's Willie Horton, the AIDS crisis (which claimed my uncle in 1990), all up to his groping of women in his twilight years. At 79 years of age, in 2003, he groped a 16 YEAR OLD.
So, while someone might say that I am being harsh, un-nuanced, and partisan in my criticism, allow me to point that the people that Bush summarily executed plenty of people, without process or trial, who were not his fellow countrymen, and who I imagine were very dear to a great many of their family members as well. And if you wish to admire the man, you take the bad with the good. My sense is that he had a lot to answer for.
Might consider including that the first go around.
10
"Apparently, to them, I failed some ultraprogressive litmus test.”"
Wille Horton, AIDS response, Iran-Contra, etc. were bad policies.
“Nevertheless I sensed a fundamental goodness in his post-presidential life & wish his family compassion.”
Translation: He was a nice guy while robbing us blind.
6
In public, he played the role of a virtuous man, which is more than we can say for the unapologetically vile predator in the White House. What he was like in private is anyone's guess, though we can surmise from his personality type that he was probably pleasant, likeable and reasonably fair to others. He was part of a corrupt, cruel system, but I believe he had a lot more integrity than the man he succeeded or his own son. Gray looks pretty good these days, when we're staring at pitch black!
2
It really is about maturity and the nuance of what it is to be an adult in a complex world. I don't get people who are so black and white in all things political or social. We live in this great country with all this opportunity and beauty and yet people are so ready to rush into the so called enemy camp and crush each other? What's the point? Pray for peace, first in your own heart and then into the world. If we were all a little less of self-righteous jerks wouldn't it be better for our own mental health and our families? Diminish your poison, lean into beauty.
2
I was hoping that surviving members of ACT-UP would have protested the funeral. I survived the era, and know that by doing nothing about AIDS, George HW Bush took untold numbers of lives and possibly caused the spread of HIV by not addressing the issue. Shame. Shame. Shame.
1
Interesting NPR interview with former NYTimes exec editor Jill Abramson, who wrote book "Strange Justice: The Selling Of Clarence Thomas" with Jane Mayer.
Dec 2 “The Impact Of Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court Nomination”.
Abramson says:
--- “conservatives were angry at Bush’s 1st choice for the Court, David Souter. So to satisfy them Bush nominated Thomas to replace the legendary Thurgood Marshall the 1st black justice.
Thurgood Marshall feared that the GOP, in a political move to disarm its liberal opponents, would replace him with a black nominee who shunned the very civil rights agenda for which Marshall had spent his life fighting."
She also says the GOP and advisors to Bush "knew that Democrats and liberals might be loath to oppose a black nominee, even one who opposed many of the landmark cases that Justice Marshall championed."
"Republicans thought Anita Hill was lying and they orchestrated a political opposition campaign against her. Whether Bush knew the details of all of that, I don't know. Bush said Thomas was the best qualified man for the job, which created a bit of controversy since he had very little judicial experience.”
Well, the president should have known the details of all that.
Thomas said the Anita Hill hearings were a 'high tech lynching'. Sounds like Trump.
Plenty of politics there---the very thing the GOP always charge the Democrats with.
2
Fair enough. But, the coverage of Bush's political life has been over the top hagiography, with very few shades of gray. His claim that while he was vice president he knew nothing of the illegal proxy war in Nicaragua and the arms for hostages deal with Iran is shameful, and not credible for a cabinet member that was a former CIA director. He then when on to pardon all of the convicted, and not yet indicted criminals that committed those sordid acts. His family's fortune was also built on connections that continued to supply the Nazis and fascists after the U.S. had entered the conflict-the company was sanctioned under the Trading with the Enemy Act. He also helped kick off the still rolling wave of falling wages and overt hostility to unions that is throttling the American Dream.
He was not history's greatest monster, by any stretch, and may have done more good than evil on balance. It's an open question as far as I am concerned. I understand why people are desperate to rally around someone that was dedicated and reflective enough to consider the meaning and value of public service. I just think that it's very unlikely that history can properly be understood if all of those shades of gray are whitewashed.
I think he was a fundamentally good man who often surrendered to his family's legacy and his own worst impulses. He was human, and should be examined as one, not glorified as an untarnished hero. We ought to have the maturity to do so.
4
The man was 94. The amount of grief expressed over his death is ridiculous, and demonstrates just how crazy Americans are when it comes to dealing with death.
5
I know Bush wasn’t all evil, but we don’t need a solid week of veneration.
5
We all die. What is it about death that makes people still alive reluctant to tell the unvarnished truth about a life? This is as true for non famous people as well as presidents.
Whatever the actual verifiable facts are about a recently deceased person, how about just tell the truth, good or bad, about he or she. The orgy of praise and the minimizing of egregious aspects of a life-why do we do this?
It is the denial of reality that has devastated this nation. How about debunking all the fantasies and spin, and use reality as a healthy foundation for discussions of how to improve this country. It's the avoidance of reality that is making a mockery of democracy.
2
Thank you for you voice of reason Mr. Bruni.
3
Well said Frank. Now get ready for the same blowback Bryan Behar received.
2
The legacy and track record of history for Bush 41 will not be written in the eulogies and tweets in the day after he died. History will have its time to judge the man and his actions, good or bad, on the world. In 94 years, he had plenty of time to be at his best and his worst as a human and a president. Neither trait or record wholly negates the other except for a small subset of people whose lives were so monstrous as to render irrelevant whatever smidgen of decency they had (Hitler, Stalin, etc). For the rest of us, we should be able to look at the entirety and recognize both parts of a complex life.
Thank you Frank Bruni. This needed saying.
1
OK, set aside all the pablum and let's attend to the tweet:
1) Love of country. Sure. Everyone does. Pointless to note, especially in a president.
2) He loved its highest democratic norms and ideals? That's just post-death pablum. That you won't see, by the way, when someone like Noam Chomsky, who did and does, dies, as he will soon.
Plus, whether he loved them or not isn't really provable outside of *what he did.* Talk is cheap: action is what counts, especially action taken with some risk--for these very ideals. The crimes of the HW admin are many; they deserve to be noted: https://theintercept.com/2018/12/01/the-ignored-legacy-of-george-h-w-bush-war-crimes-racism-and-obstruction-of-justice/
The rules are different when it's a foreign leader--or, of course, any American not in the establishment. Funny, that, no?
3) Our obligations to the international order? Like invading Panama? Like the Gulf War? Seriously? Back to highest norms--did Bush get a declaration of war? I don't recall that, myself.
4) Good and decent man? By their actions ye shall know them. Since Bruni admits reality, he must see that HW was a mixed bag at best. So, again, why, with a public figure, must the rule be nil nisi bonum--and only for certain public figures?
The overarching problem is that actual crimes--nontrivial crimes--of powerful politicians should never be allowed to be thrown down the memory hole. Write a balanced obit, even if it's a tweet, and you won't get pushback.
10
As soon as a single Trump supporter shows even 1/1000th of this "magnanimity" towards say, Obama (forget Hillary) I'll be happy to give a hoot about your sermon. Jimmy Carter is old if he should leave us soon, let's see how they behave. I predict it will analogous to the response to hurricanes in Huston and Porto Rico. You can keep pedaling such one-sided cowardice because your audience already agrees with you. Why do you even bother writing it?
5
When assessing leadership it is imperative tell the truth. Tell the truth, that's all. Before public office he was a war hero -- celebrate that. Bush was nice to people, sent Maureen Dowd funny cards -- celebrate that. But when it comes to his work as CIA director, vice president and president, there is so very little to praise -- be honest about this, don't flower over it at all for it disrespects so many nameless people in favor of one privileged and entitled leader who messed up, big time. Look to many other comments for the laundry list of Bush crimes. To the list, however, I will include Bush's very possible, proven in many circles (see secret flight to Paris in late October of 1980 -- thank you NYT commenter and journalist Karen Garcia for mentioning this in an excellent reader post the other day) collusion with Iran to stall hostage release until Reagan was elected. If true, this is arguably worse than anything Trump has done. Don't let the flowery speech muffle this dirt.
8
H.W. would've been sent to his reward with less acrimony from the Left but for his benighted, dumb-and-proud-'o-it son W.
That the Bushs though it fair to inflict Jeb on America after W ran the country off a cliff was pure rich-man hubris that deserved to be mocked.
They also knew he was a faux conservative who changed positions and ate pork rinds to prove a conservative bona fides he did not possess.
He was go along to get along George. He had a resume of high level jobs each of 30 months if that in which he accomplished little but his resume building. That he was personally a nice person does not obviate his political record.
It will be said of him: "He served his corporate masters well and put his manhood in a blind trust to do so."
1
No,Mr Bruni, it is not WE who lack nuance. It was YOU: reread your column and find the moments where you addressed his racist opposition to the Civil Rights act. Can't find them? Why not? You are a good writer and could easily have woven in such nuance and made your column gray rather than a white wash, which is what it was.
8
Progressives ask uncomfortable questions of cabinet officials in restaurants and stop following people on Twitter. Trumpistas make death threats against private citizens who testify about their sexual assaults, and send pipe bombs to journalists and retired politicians that Trump identifies as "horrible people."
Wow, look at all those shades of gray.
3
American memory is tragically short. A simple Google search using the term 'George Bush Orlando Letelier' would be instructive to those who blindly lionize the deceased president.
4
The most radicalized hard core of progressives - the people the NY Times lives and dies to affect, apparently - have no room for humanity in their hearts.
They hate Bush because of Atwater and hate Atwater for the things that totally discombobulated the Dukakis campaign in 1988, like the Willie Horton ad.
Of course, Dukakis found a parallel case like Horton's to throw at Bush, but what REALLY destroyed Dukakis' once-insurmountable lead was Bush's campaign advertising about Democrats and TAXES.
Dems will always find anything other than spending and taxes to campaign on because that will continue to be their Achilles heel. Dems LOVE big government, and average Americans never will.
The Times loves G.H.W. Bush now because the only good and decent Republican is a safely dead one. Sort of like how kids adore dinosaurs.
2
Um Frank, You just noticed that in this era of stupidity, one is either committed to an ideal (misguided, flawed, and insane as it may be) and the man who's willing to fight for it at any price, or you're out? Nuance died a hard death a couple of years ago.
Can a person find Dr. Christine Blasey Ford not just credible but believe she was telling a true story--and believe Brett Kavanaugh not only lacks judicial temperament but that he probably committed several sexual assaults--and not be terribly worried about a "pile-on" against him--and still be a reasonable person in Mr. Bruni's eyes?
I didn’t like the way that 41 turned his back on things I believed in and I didn’t vote for him, but I can still see the good things he did. Too much tribalism in our country today. Too much unwillingness to see that there is a lot more grey and need for nuance in the world than strident black and white. Good column, Frank.
Nuance does not, apparently, demand acknowledging the openly cynical way republicans used every trick in the book to prevent a thorough investigation before the Kavanaugh vote (and election). Because that's how nuance works, you acknowledge the other side's points and fail to mention important facts that undermine them. After all, every issue has two sides and it's extremely important to give equal weight to both of them! Nuance also evidently entails throwing out impressive terms such as "due process" without explaining the undoubtedly smart and cool understanding prompting the reference (not to mention how a thorough investigation might factor in). Don't worry though, people will surely get what you were driving at. There will definitely not be any republicans (or centrists) who nod and say "due process, see, this guy gets it, the liberals lack nuance."
Also THANK YOU for not harping on what was potentially at stake given the imminent election. Things like, oh, the pardon power, the future of legal abortion, yadda yadda yadda. This nuance thing is great, it really clears away a lot of the clutter. Your Kavanaugh example is a revealing illustration of nuance in practice.
Was that snarky? I would love to provide a more thorough explanation of what I really mean but unfortunatel--[CHARACTER LIMIT REACHED]
Thank you Frank Bruni for once again being the voice of nuance and thoughtfulness in this mean and intransigent Twitterverse we are living in.
1
The media’s rush to beatify Pappy Bush is unseemly. I suspect future historians will place him somewhere in the middle of American presidents. Ok, but not great. Bush gave the appearance of rectitude, but Clinton accomplished more. And for all that’s been said about his foreign policy smarts, he should have spoken out against the neocons’ disastrous adventure in Iraq. What was more important...his son’s reputation or the lives, limbs and fortunes of countless US soldiers and Iraqi civilians?
5
Correct, the hyper-partisan, hyper-sensitive types ruin their own case by failing to see shades of gray. They should bide their time and reserve their vindictiveness for future obituaries covering those who really are evil with no redeeming features: Trump, Cheney and, yes, George W Bush (unless one counts false religiosity as redeeming).
1
Dare I ask why all these people are tweeting, anyway? Or why they seem to derive their sense of self worth from the number of followers they have? Me, I pen the occasional response to a NYT article --- that few people will actually read! Works for me...
2
Two random things I learned about President Bush recently, one was about his wife.
Mrs. Bush refused to stay at a hotel that wouldn't accommodate her servants (but alas for whatever reason he opposed the Civil Rights Act).
And second, at Nixon's request, he reached out to Senator Beall so he may influence his brother the U.S. attorney for Maryland to drop all charges against Agnew who had been getting kickbacks for years while in Maryland as well as in the White House. It's crazy to think what the world would be like had he succeeded in obstructing justice.
1
I get your point about nuance, but think that your critics are the one's adding it to the conversation. There has been too much praise and too little balance. Despite my disdain for his most egregious policies, I agree he did some good things like signing the ADA, though credit must be amply shared with the Democrats who fought for it and at that time controlled Congress. Today's low standard is to be grateful that he didn't deny the existence of disabilities, or worse, humiliate and mock the challenges faced by so many. Anyone will shine in comparison to Trump.
In 1988 there was enough of the morality remaining from the Roosevelt era to make "kindler and gentler" a political necessity, even if it tragically did not extend to people with AIDS.
Nevertheless, 41's niceness was appreciated by me then, and still is now, but that niceness was ultimately deceptive. Even Atwater apologized for the Willie Horton ad. The hypocrisy of dogwhistle racist appeals while maintaining a facade of gentility, has taken an unexpected path since the 1988 election.
While that hypocrisy offended the left, it was rolled into the definition of political correctness by the right. So rather than get policy to match the lofty rhetoric as I would have liked, we got anger from the "populist" right that hated the hypocrisy as well, but instead wanted hateful rhetoric to match the angry polices. In 2016, I felt that Reagan and the modern GOP built the stage for Trump. I still do.
1
@DLNYC
Says a lot that Atwater apologized for the Horton ad, but Bush never did.
2
I agree with Bruni and Behar. For the sake of argument, let's put this the other way around. All in all, I think BIll Clinton was a good president. But his conduct to his wife and to an intern at least in some sense in his care, like any boss, was indefensible. I also remember his flying back to Little Rock during his campaign to preside over the execution of the brain-damaged Mr Rector. (And yes, I am aware that Mr Rector's injuries resulted from a suicide attempt.) When WJC passes on, as we all will, I expect to remember him with gratitude but I will not be surprised, or object too strenuously, if some recall his flaws first and foremost.
Now more than ever, people are tired of bad acts getting lost in the news cycle (often a planned obsolecense by bad actors).
People are sick to death of the glossing over of such bad acts. People are tired of politics as usual and let's all pretend that the bad guys aren't so bad if we can just wait long enough for the next big story to distract us.
And now we have the relative-to-Trump syndrome, so anybody can be a saint right now relative to Trump.
I admire people who have the mental capacity and tenacity to remember actual history and see the truth of how we got to where we are today. George H.W. Bush was a big part of that path and if people object to his glorification, then so be it.
3
If our lives were open to the kind of scrutiny Presidents face, who among us would not have "indelible stains"? Who would not hope for some notice--and grace--for our "points of light"?
1
"they demonstrated the transcendent curse of these tribal times: Americans’ diminishing ability to hold two thoughts at once"
You disagree with people's legitimate issues with the praise being heaped on a deeply flawed President and they are the ones with a problem. That's a very intelligent point of view, not childish at all.
1
There is no shade of gray for many .. sadly most of my friends on the left are the most guilty. As a gay man I remember the 80's .. There is plenty of guilt to go around. We certainly knew what was going on ... RR using the bully pulpit or not .. the NIH had tons of money.
I'm sure the gay rights activists will forget Clinton cut the funding (to fund cancer) -- DADT and DOMA. The Human Rights Campaign ridiculed those of us who wanted marriage -- keep in line don't make waves against a democratic president.
What's worse the W. Horton add by an outside group (people forget that) or Bill and HRC's attack on Obama 20 years later .. 20 years! .. They will get a pass.
GHWB was a decent guy .... we need a few more like him. Obama should try and follow and stop trying to make $$
1
You can't be serious in comparing John McCain, a war hero and a man of principles (bad ones, but still) with wishy-washy Bush Senior, who simply followed the plan set out by his father, jealously attempting to rival the Kennedy's, and blindly toeing the line set by Atwater and other establishment thugs. Bush failed by failing to do anything meaningful for the people. We honor him because of the office, period.
2
HW Bush gave us the phrase "voodoo economics" to characterize Reagan's policies of tax reductions coupled with military spending increases. Then he helped stick the pins in the doll as Reagan's VP.
HW also gave us W who gave us stupid, unjust wars, chaos in the middle east, economic collapse, failure to address climate change and no infrastructure improvement.
5
Some on the left only seem capable seeing people as good or bad. Good if you are on the left and bad if you are on the right.
1
For an unfortunately way-too-obvious reason, many of us left-of-center types have indulged in an embarrassing revisionism when it comes to recently departed Republicans. Look no further than MSNBC or CNN for unending hagiographies of Barbara ("rhymes with rich," "my beautiful mind") Bush, John McCain (who, when a Hillary victory appeared imminent, vowed to give any and all of her SCOTUS nominees the McConnell treatment), and now George H.W. (two words: Clarence Thomas) Bush.
I get it that the recently deceased deserve an extra level of graciousness, but remember these folks are angels, perfect beings, only in contrast with Individual 1.
And when he goes? Will we find ourselves beatifying him, if only because the GOP will have foisted someone even more abhorrent on this country? You know darn well that if they can do it, they will.
8
Never trust social media to figure out the nuances of a complicated president.
1
No matter how you come down on the issues, I think it is safe to say that HW was a very decent man. But he was a politician. The Horton ad was not an outright lie, so he allowed the ugly racist dog whistle to sound. I did not vote for him, but that alone would not have been my motivation. Most politicians do not run or win by "denouncing" every vile attitude of a potential supporter. HW's son my not meet a similar fate. He sent people off to fight and die, knowing full well that WMD was a lie. The Presidency requires a team. I voted for Bill Clinton and by the time his term was up, I knew that he did not deserve the office. I would not shed a tear for any of the above. But, I also am respectful of the loss for those who may have loved them at a personal distance.
The first president Bush was the first president (I'm 56) I truly disliked. His response to every crisis, I found, was adolescent. He was completely out of touch with average Americans. And let's not forget that he ran a racist campaign, repeatedly and shamefully bringing up the Willie Horton episode, which of course went down in history as one of the most famously despicable political ads of all time. Death should not sweep all that under the rug. The rush to fawn over H.W. Bush as a decent man, to serve up a contrast to Trump, is full of hypocrisy. Let there be plenty of negative assessments.
I am liking Bruni better the more I read him. There are no perfect humans, and I do not agree with anyone, including myself, all the time...
1
Poor liberals, poor progressives, poor Frank Bruni. It must be hard to be on the left where one is never satisfied with anyone. There is always someone somewhere violating a leftists coda. I am a middle of the road Republican and firmly believe that the American public will sooner or later, and always, lead our country onto the correct track. (I hope I haven't enraged anyone reading this.) Peace.
1
Wow, way to go Frank. You even stayed consistent by acknowledging the President Trump is not the devil! There is hope yet.
1
The obituaries have reminded me of Chimamanda Ngozi’s Ted talk on the danger of a single story. People should watch it if they haven’t.
Why is it so difficult to see a person beyond a single story of good, evil, poor, rich, bigoted...? have we not evolved from the cowboy movie viewers who needed to be guided about the protagonists with white or black clothing? (Speaking of reinforcing stereotypes...)
I say: It’s easy decades later to take pot shots at someone for not doing more back in the day. Because attitudes have changed in the time. Do people realize how difficult it is to go against accepted ideology and beliefs that permeate the environment? If not: then just consider a story that’s “true” for your family and try going against it... even something mundane like say the Adams family doesn’t do well at sports...
That H.W. Bush wasn’t a leader on AIDS needs to be weighed in the context of the environment of how truly bad his predecessor was and where the Republican Party stood then. In fact wasn’t homosexuality a mental disorder till 1987?? Yes, I can judge him poorly for Willie Horton but give him credit for his foreign policy acumen: he stopped himself from pursuing Saddam inside Iraq and showed the wisdom succeeding Republicans couldn’t. He handled the collapse of the Iron Curtain well. He made progress on civil rights.
Let’s make the effort to see the multiple stories that constitute a person’s life... rather than paint with a broad brush.
2
How's this for lack of nuance: This "patrician" had the colossal nerve to encourage his dim-witted son to run for the world's most powerful position. He could not have been unaware of his son's lack of intelligence and unfamiliarity with the written word. The remainder of this story we recognize as one of the greatest tragedies of our time.
If that weren't enough hubris for you, he encouraged a second dimwitted son to run. That didn't quite pan out.
Accentuate the positive, indeed. The media should suspend its "mutual admiration society" relationship with the political elite. Your role is not supposed to require subservience.
Just the facts, please.
4
George H. W. Bush . . . something of a mixed bag, in my book. A decent man, to be sure. Yet, he knew how to play the race card, and play it he did. For example, he gave us Willie Horton and Clarence Thomas. As an African American, choices like those were deeply regrettable and disrespectful, to say the least.
That being said, R.I.P., Mr. President.
"But too many of us tend to interpret events, political figures and issues in all-or-nothing, allies-or-enemies, black-and-white terms, blind to shades of gray."
The fact that you even take the space to note the above explains, in part, why Hillary is not President.
Till "progressives" acknowledge their sins of elitist views of "black-white" instead of the grays of everyday life, I'll vote populist. And I'm a registered Dem centrist.
I admired McCain and even Bush, Sr., sometimes, but even more Henry Scoop Jackson, Lyndon Johnson and Patrick Daniel Moynihan. These were Republican and Dems who knew how difficult it is to be a centrist, and who produced wonderful policy for us all. And, important to me, they were all strong supporters of Israel and unions.
So, those who "unfollowed" Behar can go listen to Roger Waters songs and support Islamic fascism.
I'm still waiting for Hillary to find the center, or someone like her. And if it means losing temporarily to fashionable candidates of the "socialist Left," for the moment, we won't forget you when the hands on the universal clock go all the way around again.
2
In these perilous times for our democracy, we have to keep our objectivity and not over praise Bush. He had many fine qualities, and is a contrast to today's political swamp. But read some of the letters to the editor on his record.
He was a conservative Republican on many issues, who in the Senate followed the line of rw extremist Barry Goldwater in the early years. He evolved. but he still put the unqualified Clarence Thomas on the S. Court, who then voted to contradict what the great Thurgood Marshall had fought for.
A NYTimes article worth reading--- “When the Subject Is Civil Rights, There Are Two George Bushes” JUNE 9, 1991.
Says Bush’s campaign benefited from the notorious Willie Horton ads, and he also appointed the 1st black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Colin Powell.
He vetoed a civil rights bill in 1990, but he donated half proceeds from his autobiography to the United Negro College Fund.
In 1948, as a student at Yale, he led a fund-raising drive for the United Negro College Fund, but as a Texas candidate he vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
At times he got a 70% approval rating of 70 per among blacks.
This is one of our most contradictory presidents, in a contradictory America. Now during the reign of Trump, we have to try to evaluate with objectivity.
The dissents are confined to identity politics--race and sexual preference. As usual neoliberals fell in line with Bush imperial foreign policy decisions
Sorry, but media folks are still obsessed with Twitter feeds...when will all of you see twitter comments for what they are, which is pretty much nothing. A whole story on someone's twitter numbers going low. That's weak.
LP
What should we make of the outsized public and media interest in the passing of President Bush?
He had been out of the Presidency since 1993 and largely out-of the-public eye since this week.
Always a quiet and self-effacing man, there was no reason to expect the kind of rock-star treatment from the public and the media his death is now receiving.
Is this simply an exercise in nostalgia for a time when elderly people like myself were 25 years younger?
Partly perhaps, but I’m certain there is much more to the story than that.
America 25 years ago was a more or less normal country and Bush was a normal man.
He loved one wife, never cavorted with porn stars, didn’t write tweets, raised good kids, worked hard, maintained decent and respectful relations with his political opponents, served in the military and liked dogs.
(Presidential historians will one day come to understand that liking dogs is an important requirement for achieving success in the Presidency.)
Comparing Bush to Trump is like comparing apples to oranges, or a normal President to a highly pathological one.
Bush’s last gift to the nation was dying when he did and giving the nation a glimpse of what we be again when Trump is disposed of.
1
He had been out of the Presidency since 1993 and largely out-of the-public eye until this week.
... a glimpse of what we might be again when Trump is disposed of.
1
Objectivity is a fine trait in making judgments. But you will never find it in Republicans when it comes to Trump or global warming or women's rights or .......
Apparently the standard for judging the whole of a person’s life is now that we throw out anything good and decent that (s)he did and consider only the one or two least good things associated with them.
Who among us, liberals included, would survive such scrutiny?
Ted Kennedy? Chappaquidick knocks him out. Al Sharpton? The Tawana Brawley affair kills his reputation. Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy? Serial womanizers and marital cheaters. Bill Clinton? Need I say? Al Franken? Well, we just saw what happened to him.
Bush 41 was a good and decent man—a war hero, family man, patriot, dedicated public servant and a guy who had many, many friends to whom he was very loyal. Like all of us imperfect humans, he also made some mistakes.
When they write my eulogy, I would gladly take that.
2
Frank...Your column on President Bush and this one today say everything about your approach to the news...looking for an honest, "kinder and gentler" path. Thank you.
1
"A mix of appreciations and censorious assessments is in order, and it’s very much arguable that the first wave of takes on Bush, including one that I wrote for The Times, tilted excessively toward the complimentary." - There's the answer to Mr. Bruni's question. When institutions like the Times rush to whitewash history, they invite a backlash. If you don't like the backlash, don't do that.
1
Heroes and villains are traditionally seen as white and black, yin and yang, as absolutes without possibilities of shading or nuance. Otherwise they would the same as you or me...
41 was a man of honorable lineage politically and socially with an excellent military and public service record who drank the conservative Republican Kool-Aid, let himself be dominated by Republican extremists and bequeathed us W. Any moments, or thoughts, of heroism were missed, or passed.
Obituaries are political as well now apparently. As such they have become meaningless and mean spirited.
1
"And they demonstrated the transcendent curse of these tribal times: Americans’ diminishing ability to hold two thoughts at once."
With respect, isn't this exactly what you did in your first op-ed about GHWB? Didn't you offer one-sided praise for a man who, if I may be frank, did a great deal of harm to the gay community with his criminal inaction on the AIDS crisis?
It seems that only now that you yourself have received backlash that you've provided a more balanced view of his legacy.
GHWB was an infallible human, like all of us. He should be given credit for the great things he did, especially after leaving office. But your job isn't to provide a glowing revisionist obituary of his presidency, and coming in here now with a new op-ed in which you seem to be calling out others for the exact thing you're doing now sure does call into question your own ability to see the same shades of gray for which you accuse others of failing to see.
And seriously, Frank? Weren't you coming of age at the height of the AIDS crisis?
The one silver lining following the deaths of John McCain and GHWB is that perhaps Americans will remember a time when politics was more civil, but those fond memories of a more innocent time is no reason to forget the man's grave mistakes.
1
Extremists of any stripe are stagnant thinkers who value only ideological conformity. Their inability to acknowledge common ground is their weapon and their danger. They are the reason we have a trump.
It has been 22 years since Bush left office. Half the people now living in the US likely have no memory of his term. For those that do, offering churlish comments the day after his death says more about them than of him.
1
It is sooo sad ... this is where we end up!! How sad!!! Breaks my heart
The worst ill that can be spoken of a man or woman is an untruth. If you would honor and well remember those who have passed, remember them as they were, both their good traits and bad.
After death nearly all former presidents and world leaders become paragons of virtue, intelligence and ethical and moral decency, and nearly all who comment vie to provide the most flattering recollections.
These recollections are nearly comical in the zeal to provide only the best, most favorable and positive memories.
This is almost fine but not at the expense of facts and truth.
1
I'm not sure how Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford found their way into this column. But since they're here, I have to disagree with Frank Bruni that a public hearing assessing the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee is the same thing as "a pile-on." I'm also sure Mr. Bruni knows that due process and the presumption of innocent apply to criminal proceeding in a court of law. Public opinion tends to drift this way and that, in its own informal fashion, depending on whose perspective is dominating the discussion. In the end, of course, Mr. Kavanaugh became a justice of the Supreme Court, while Dr. Blasey Ford has continued to face threats and harassment as a result of her testimony. Speaking on a pile-on.
1
Many cringe at the Downton Abbey-ness of this use of our tax dollars. More rich parading around in front of us, demanding medals and obeisance.
7
The moral rot that infected the White House during the Clinton presidency in one meaning was in different meanings vastly expanded by W and his ilk, and it has metastasized beyond all imaginable scope and hit the ultimate depths under the current administration. It's no wonder, therefore, that, in contrast, a military hero but an unexceptional intellect like George HW Bush has been earning so many encomiums. Remember the truth he told about himself in an unguarded moment during the 1992 presidential campaign, that he had no "vision thing" for the country.
I recall that back in the1970s, he seemed so eager to advance himself in national politics by holding whatever high office came his way through political connections that he took it so, as some observers suggested, his bio-data would look good for his ambitious plans for himself no matter how insignificant the length of time he served in a particular office and under whom-- leading the Republican National Committee; heading the first U.S. diplomatic office in Beijing, being chief of the CIA, and the like. I remember a rather unkind but not entirely inapt description of the man then by some cartoonist whose name escapes me now: "Have resume, will travel."
All this is apart from the many other serious blemishes on his career that others in this discussion thread have already pointed out.To those in the press who have been writing fulsome praises of this man: an obituary of a public figure should not be an eulogy.
1
It's not a litmus test. It is imperative that we not give quarter to conservative ideas that have been discredited for generations. That is how false myths survive and wreak havoc. How can I praise a conservative who denies human-caused climate change and the fact of evolution while insisting that social programs for dark-skinned people create a culture of dependency, and that crumbs trickling off the table of wealth will raise all boats? Nonsense. Not being a meanie is a pretty low bar.
5
Like Reagan, G.H.W.B. was a better post-president than the living president one who governed in those times. See: Nostalgia is a better cosmetic than face powder.
Important and respectful and healing to bless the memories of those in the way they were, not how we idealize them. Bush was praised for his prosecution of people during the S & L crisis when in fact his family was involved. I thought he hadn’t done enough partly because he seemed to be protecting his son Neil. I disliked him as a leader but respected him as a father. Anyone as President who doesn’t struggle with competing principles is dangerous as we clearly see today when we have President whose only principle is a mirror
It's one thing to acknowledge shades of gray, quite another to whitewash somebody's history of questionable moral judgement and unmitigated civil rights failures with the condescending "he's not perfect" all purpose soul cleanser.
People just aren't as willing as they used to be a generation or two ago to accept the dipped in fairy tale pablum that even respected publications like this one seem compelled to furnish about our departed leaders.
It just seems classless and mean spirited to tell the unvarnished truth about somebody who has just passed away, especially if that truth has serious blemishes and brings into question somebody's moral fitness.
That's not something we can stuff easily into our myth making machinery without gumming up the works.
GHWB is truly a mixed bag if there ever was one, but he was not a "great" man. If I squint real hard, I can see a decent man who served our country heroically in the war but had a very tough time hitting that high note again in his political life. Instead of raising his game, he shrank in several key moments that could have defined him in a completely different way for me.
If there is one true thing that Trump has taught us, it's that being president shouldn't automatically confer anything at all, especially a historical rewrite upon their death.
204
@JayK a worthwhile comment, thank you. Although a died-in-the wool Dem, I cannot help liking both McCain and GHWB. Partly my age - I can identify - and partially the fact that both had true personality.
But I still firmly believe McCain helped push our bloated military spending without thought and the Bush relationship with the Saudis and his massive profiting from post-Presidential private work are very disturbing.
We tend to add too much glory at the time of death instead of objective, respectful, honest, remembrance that could be lessons for our children.
24
@Bill Wilson
Thank you.
McCain & GHWB were two sides of the same coin.
Their "stylistic" approaches could not have been more opposite, but their patrician, entitled upbringings instilled in both of them the same type of values, for better and worse.
In the end, neither one could break free of the gravitational pull of their origin.
They were both men who were certainly born on third base, and although I believe that they had enough just enough self awareness to realize that they didn't actually hit the "triple", they both seemed very content to just camp out there and not steal home.
Too bad.
16
@JayK
Good point. It might also be beneficial to evaluate a President in two different spheres: as President and as a private individual. When Bill Clinton's obituaries are written, I think he'll get a B for his performance as POTUS, and a D as a private citizen.
Lying? Everybody lies, every day, for different reasons.
2
Dear Frank,
It is hard to be forgiving when the actions of the privileged and the powerful are indifferent to the suffering of people.
I lived through the aids crisis.
I remember the indifference (at best) and out-right hostility (at worst) from the so called 'Christians' and 'supposed' leaders of our American society.
7
"I failed some ultraprogressive litmus test."
Yup. That particular ugliness is one huge part of the reason that I'm no longer on social media (unless you consider the Times' comments sections social media), and why, although I've been a lifelong liberal (and, not for nothing, worked for ten years as a counselor and caseworker for people with AIDS, starting in 1988), I'm starting to find parts of the Left almost as unpalatable as I always have much of the Right.
No man or woman is without fault--myself included, certainly--or has not made mistakes in judgement that he or she may or may not later come to regret, or at least "soften" on with age and perhaps wisdom. Neither Bush nor McCain were political heroes of mine by any means, but both were intelligent, thoughtful about how our country should at least be governed with dignity, and had a right to their opinions, even if I and others vehemently disagreed with them. Even George W. showed grace when he left the White House. All had souls--a quality that is particularly lacking these days both in our "president" and in our vitriolic interactions with each other.
176
@NGB
If anyone has a soul, everyone has a soul. Trump's current display of malaise is an indication of terror that his web of lies is about to come apart.
1
@Nat Ehrlich , I guess it depends on your definition of a soul, or the context (I meant to mention that Cheney seems to lack one as well, and the whole heart thing is just mystifying!).
I sincerely hope you're right about Trump, but I'm not holding my breath.
By the way, what were all his previous displays of malaise (great lyrics for a song!) about? :)
3
Bush's passing has opened up a Pandora's box by scrutinizing his legacy and there are many aspects of it that are ugly. That being said, Bush looks eminently honorable and competent compared to our current president. Checking off the positives on Bush: war hero, played integral role in the dissolution of Soviet Union, oversaw successful Desert Storm operation, demonstrated full support for the man who defeated him in 1992. Now let's check off the positives for Trump. Sorry, I can't come up with any.
119
@nzierler And didn't invent the ADA but was fully in support of it. Trump on people with disabilities? I can't even go there...
17
@New to NC
I will. He mocks them.
Trump is a deplorable. This country can't be rid of him soon enough. AND his equally deplorabe wife and children.
I'm a New York born and bred and as much as I want to see them all out of the WH I hate the thought os them returning to my beloved city.
Florida deserves them. May they please go there and stay there. :-)
23
@nzierler Well, it looks like he's blowing up the Republican party . . . that's certainly a plus. It's been rotten since Gingrich (or maybe before)
8
It would seem that in the social mediaverse the only room for shades of grey are in discussions of kinky novels.
And life generally has many more than fifty.
1
I think we have lost our ability to go beyond black and white to shades of grey here, because we have lost our ability to recognize that each of us is a mixture of good and bad. We all see and magnify the mote in our neighbor's eye, but refuse to perceive that we might have a beam in our own. Personally, I disagreed most strongly with President Bush, although the Mr. George HW Bush may actually have been a fine man. I think the reason so many people are saying "He was civil..." "He was decent..." "He was a gentleman..." is because we have lost those qualities of civility, decency, and gentility and THAT is what we are mourning -- not him.
2
I think the problem for some of us was Bush was immediately presented in hagiographic terms, with little or no criticism, as if "speak no ill of the dead" was canonic law. Because of that some of us responded in kind with what we saw as a more accurate assessment of the man and his deeds. He may not have been Stalin 2.0 but he had major flaws and in an open democracy we should be able to point that out. He was a public figure who profited from that position and as such deserves an honest evaluation that forgoes the kind of fawning I've witnessed in the last few days.
8
Good column . We are fast approaching a place where a candidate must be 101% perfect to run for office.
5
@Twill , and not even in the same universe as perfect in order to win the office :)
1
"But we do seem to be getting worse at complexity."
The world appears to be a simple place to simple-minded people. It is not, of course. Therein lies the rub.
1
Are you kidding me? This is worth a column? I usually love you, Frank, but seriously. I had to travel for work the last 2 days; at home, I rarely watch television, but on my trip I indulged in the hotel's cable TV. A huge number of stations were showing the memorial. Meanwhile, almost zero coverage of the climate meeting in Poland, where the fate of humanity might be being decided. The Times and other media need to drop this "great man" narrative. Good or great or terrible, I really don't care. It's not about individuals anymore- ESPECIALLY not about anyone who helped shape today's GOP. Condolences to the family. Fine. But life is for the living. And we have an existential crisis that should be all over the media every single day.
13
I've read more comments and I think they are as unconvincing as Frank's original Bush missive (which he now admits was at least misstated, and is the sole reason for my comments today). But many of us believe any death is a time for true sadness. Even I was driven close to tears. You need only see his son's deep grief to make it impossible not to mourn his death. That still isn't a justification to dissemble.
5
@Mickeyd Did you pause and feel true sadness for each of the thousands of Iraqis who died on Bush's watch and the millions more who were eventually killed by his son? This sentimentality that is gripping this country is disappointing to say the least. Americans might be less religious than they used to but we haven't shaken our WASP/Puritan cultural naivety.
3
If you can find a president without flaws, you have reached far into the cosmos to find him/her. For now, we are stuck with earthlings — we always were.
George H.W. Bush certainly could have zigged instead of zagged on many occasions to avoid mistakes. And I, for one, will not cast the first stone. But there were promises made, kept and broken during Mr. Bush's tenure as POTUS. In launching the Gulf War 1, he promised allies he would not push to Baghdad at the end. Thus we had allied support in driving Iraq's troops out of Kuwait. The infamous "highway of death" was a sign of what could happen if we continued north to Baghdad. It was a promise kept.
Mr. Bush also told the "swamp Arabs" in the south of Iraq that, if they were to rise up against Sadam Hussein, American airpower would be there to assure success of such a rebellion.
But, when they rose up against their government, we were not to be found — or, apparently, bothered — to fulfill our promise of overwhelming air support. That broken promise resulted in a slaughter by Hussein's forces. They also, quite literally, drained the massive lake (the swamp) that was vital to commerce in that region.
For instance, Bill Clinton, too, broke promises: of marital fidelity; of promises to his Labor Sec. Robert Reich in an attempt to appease a man who would not be appeased: Newt Gingrich. Every compromise made by Clinton was betrayed by Republican leadership at every turn.
There were wins and losses. That's Politics 101.
2
"A person can deplore Trump’s recklessly inflammatory characterizations of illegal immigration and treatment of migrants while acknowledging that secure borders are a legitimate concern."
If this was the best the author, a brilliant columnist, could come up with to exemplify his point that the left is also guilty of the all-or-nothing assessments the article rails against, then the left isn't doing too, badly.
Because this is a weak example. I don't know anyone, left or right, who doesn't believe in controlling who or how many immigrants cross our borders. Trump and his minions' characterization of less-restrictive and more human border policies as advocating for "open borders" with absolutely no check on type or number is a complete myth. To refute it, or give it credence with the acknowledgment the author suggests, just plays into Trump's hands by keeping reasonable people busy refuting baseless accusations. It is the equivalent of defending a charge from an anti-choice advocate that pro-choice liberals celebrate every time someone has an abortion. Just too ridiculous to defend.
7
I have been a little uncomfortable with all the praise lavished upon President George H.W. Bush, yet understand that upon the death of an imperfect, but honorable man, this is to be expected to some extent. History, however, judges leaders more impartially. So I doubt very much that our current President and many leaders in the GOP will be judged well. Knowing this takes a lot of the burden off of me. I don't have to obsess about Trump or his followers, and I'm free to put my energy into building bridges where I can. The disunity and tribalism in our country is a great threat, not only to democracy, but to the world and ourselves. Hating people for having different ideas is much too overblown. Dialing back such impulses to mere exasperation is far more healthy. No one has a corner on the truth, not even ourselves.
4
"we ... seem to be getting worse ... At allowing for ... virtue and vice commingle in most people ..."
The author has mistaken 'the tendency to project the character of a person in simplistic terms of black /white, without shades of gray' with 'allowing for degree to which virtue and vice commingle in most people'.
Americans are perfectly capable of 'allowing for ... virtue and vice ... [ to ] ... commingle in most people'.
Even a casual glance at comic strips which supposedly project a 'superhero' in simplistic terms, will show that the stories and even characterisation are 'complex' enough and allow for more than 'shades of gray' in development of the persona of the 'superhero'.
I rarely agree with you, sir,and i find your take on many issues lacking research and heft. But i nearly always read your columns. For the simple reason that, unlike a solid chunk of your colleagues here on the op-ed pages, you somehow manage to write a different column every time. On different issues and with a different perspective than can generally be found elsewhere. Around these parts, that's not nothing. So please carry on.
Anybody, as Frank admits, can hold one thought at a time. The problem is not two thoughts together. A good man who did evil. Is that two thoughts? One thought? I think so, It makes for a nice rhetorical flourish but it's certainly not the problem here.There is not an individual who recognizes friends with bad traits. "He's a good guy even though..."
Frank it even more unconvincing when he praises “a life of dignity.” And with "valor." Sounds like the purple heart with valor. Please. If someone does good things only when it is politically inexpensive, that doesn't make for dignity. Why is dignity, only a style of life, a positive quality anyway? Frank is confusing style with substance. If that goes in an obituary, fine. In this case, it would be ironic of course. "He ran a racist, anti American campaign, killed thousands of innocent Arabs, including infants, but he did so with dignity." Maybe that's too complicated but it is probably true. "He showed valor in war (although the president finds his bailing out of a crashing fighter plane a sign of cowardice...) but little outside of that." True also, I suppose.
Most of us just get a notice for which we pay. I don't think any more is merited unless the deceased is someone truly extraordinary. Aside from a dignified mien and a valorous bail, Bush was not that.
6
The comments I have heard about HW Bush bear little resemblance to the man I remember. He was a ruthless political opportunist. A man who did more than maybe anyone other than his son to bring out the nastiness in politics we have today. His campaign manager was Lee Atwater who apologized on his deathbed for how the campaign was conducted. A false and racist Willie Horton ad, read the reviews of Bush's debate with Dukakis, Bush's criticisms of Dukakis were not based on reality, they were bold lies (Dukakis performance was not exemplary either). Lies about not raising taxes, he never admitted he was wrong. Refusal to apologize for US actions even when they were horribly wrong, as in the downing of an Iranian airlines with 260 souls on board by a US Navy ship illegally in Iranian water (a financial settlement was made with no admission of error). A justification of invasion of Panama for US self defense? Appointing grossly incompetent men to the VP and SC (Quayle and Thomas).
8
Oh my goodness, Frank Bruni, you say we are getting worse at complexity and nuance because of the strong reaction of many of us to the recent Supreme Court appointments which were simply the fulfillment of a campaign promise. Maybe so, but it appears the choices were made because of their willingness to be associated with this administration, rather than who would be best for the entire nation. As I recall, Kavanaugh raises concerns beyond reproductive rights and may have jumped the line for his views on executive power. (I wish they piled on him more).
You think the president’s concern about immigration issues deserves some slack even though he initiated his campaign by calling Mexicans coming here rapists and not their best people?
I am not familiar with Bryan Behar, and maybe the reaction to his comments were unfair, but my guess is he’ll be all right and continue his work. Without strong voices condemning the degradation and destruction of our system of laws and governance, I’m not so sure about the fate of our democracy.
3
Frank, I usually agree with every word that you write but, in my view, GHWB’s invasion of Panama (in a fit of pique) was and IS a war crime.
Saying wonderful things about him on television doesn’t change what he did and only furnishes us with yet one more example of the confluence of news and entertainment that now burdens us with Donald Trump.
May he rest in peace…and all that.
3
"We like our villains without redemption and our heroes without blemish. What happened to shades of gray?"
We are at war with the Republican party. They will say and do just about anything for money and power. Considering the fact that they almost got rid of health care for millions.
Your relaxed attitude doesn't help. Ask Hillary about the benefits of not going all out to win.
2
This is 100%. Thank you for being the voice of reason. I actually innocently asked a question from a woman who tweeted that people who don't receive chicken pox vaccinations should be "quarantined on an island." I just wanted to know why she was painting with such a broad brush, when for many people, there was no vaccination against chicken pox when they were growing up. She totally lashed out at me and doubled down on the idea that I should be quarantined and now vaccinated against shingles. First of all, I'm not 50 or older. Second of all, is it really that hard for Americans to just have civilized discourse anymore? I never called her a name or even said that I was against vaccinations. I just questioned her extreme position of quarantining anyone who had not had every vaccination that exists. Sadly, I'm not surprised that such extremism exists on both the left and the right. But I am disappointed.
This is a good column.
I think we need to do more to confront the intolerance of rabid ideologues and partisans and stand up to support dissent from the orthodoxies of the left and the right.
The world is a complicated place and nuance abounds. Few things are black and white. We should listen to each other and debate -- you often find a third way.
The country would be a better place if every Fox New viewer was forced to read the Times for an hour a week and vice versa.
2
George Herbert Walker Bush is gone. No point in rehashing his faults, virtues or office holding. He was a better president than his son or Trump. He didn’t represent me at all however. He was smart enough to not stay at war in the Middle East too long but was way too cozy with the Saudi royal family.
1
In any human endeavor, good and bad are co-existing givens. That is just simple and universal truth. And while HW Bush had plenty to be ashamed of, he accomplished equal amounts on the other side of the scale. Again, that is just how life is. If our tribal instincts have grown so course that we cannot recognize and acknowledge this truth, we truly are vulnerable to a collapse into the abyss.
This column is spot on with everything said, but I do take exception to the notion that the president was not abusing his office by making the two supreme court nominations. Technically, I do agree with that assessment; however, the machinations that went on in congress to allow those nominations to go forward truly do equate to abuse of office.
1
I do hold two thoughts on G.H.W. Bush simultaneously, but I have chosen to take my own road. I’m flying my flag at half staff, and I have refrained from public comment until now. I believe that Bush’s actions around HIV/AIDS tipped the scale for me. One hundreds thousand died on his watch. HIV individuals were banned from entering the country. He spoke despicably about “changing behaviors” rather than speaking frankly about sexuality. People died unnecessarily and that, to me, is unforgivable.
3
For all you haters...
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”--TR
2
“If we all were judged according to the consequences
of all our words and deeds, beyond the intention and beyond our limited understanding of ourselves and others, we should all be condemned.”
― T. S. Eliot, The Cocktail Party
1
Should George H. W. Bush be granted immunity from criticism simply because he passed? Does criticism necessarily contravene respect? Substitute the president of your choice in place of Mr. Bush, includng Trump, of course .. then, think about your answer ...
1
All real people are "shades of gray." Obviously.
But many villains without redemption.
And the "hero" is a person of many stages.
E.g., George H.W. Bush put his life on the line to serve his country. Kudos. Donald J. Trump has not serve anyone or anything but himself since the day Trump was born.
However, George. H. W. Bush was also born a rich man with a golden spoon in his mouth (just lie like Trump). And Bush, just like Trump, NEVER understood what it was like to be an average working person like the rest of us.
The fact that Bush wasn't a pig in a suit in public when addressing his fellow human beings (and my apologies to pigs for using them in my insult) does not make Bush a "hero."
Almost no politicians is ever a hero because all politicians do bad things in their roles as leaders. Abe Lincoln and Tom Jefferson were genocidal leaders when it comes to Native Americans, even though one freed the slaves, and the other bedded his slaves.
1
Every hero who ever lived was guilty of some evil, because every hero whoever lived was a human being. They do not deserve our worship, only our gratitude and respect. And this gratitude and respect is what we owe most of the human beings who pass our way. These past few years I have lost a number of dear friends and relatives. Few could be accounted heroes. All were flawed. All deserved to be mourned, as does George Herbert Walker Bush.
Generally when a person passes and condolences are expressed they are neither trying to write or revise history they are merely acknowledging loss.
1
Obituary are far from objective and usually omit the failings of individuals and rather point out their successes. The problem does not lie in the obituary nor in the individual, but rather in our continued problem of inconsistently holding people while alive responsible for their failings.
The anger and resentment is that at no point after his presidency did George Bush apologise for the things he got wrong. There didn't even seem to be remorse for some of his bigger issues.
The fact he regretted raising taxes over starting a false flag war that resulted in the death and suffering of millions of Iraqis hasn't been mentioned by a single major newspaper that I have seen (including the Times and even this article).
Leave obituaries the way they are, but we need to be reminded of the good and the bad leaders have done in their time in office (as well as afterwards). Just like in many jobs where they fail to do an exit interview, the media has failed to do so and in failing to do so, have lost a greater learning opportunity for all its readers.
1
Let's tell the truth. George H.W.Bush did a lot of bad things. While President, he invaded Panama where at least 3000 people were killed. Unlike Trump, he was a patrician and smiled a lot. He pardoned those involved in the Iran-Contra affair. As head of the CIA he oversaw the notorious Operation Condor, that assassinated thousands of leftists in South and Central America, etc.
The fact that people like Lanny Davis who was a lobbyist for the Oligarchy that overthrew the Zelya government in Honduras appreciates George H.W. Bush doesn't add to my appreciation this former President one bit.
8
Bush was a mixture of good and bad, like our schizophrenic American politics. Esp on racial matters, but also re taxes, economic balance, and inequality.
We have to keep our objectivity now above all, in the age of Trump, and after the rw GOP has dominated our 3 branches of govt.
Trump is an outrage to our democracy, and we must be aware of how this affects our evaluation of other possible GOP candidates and the Democrats--- some of them will look better than they are, and give the country less of what we need and deserve----just by being ‘better than Trump’.
The needless invasion of Panama which cost three thousand Panamanian lives, the Salvador repression at the tune of over seventy thousand lives when Bush was VP, are conveniently left out of these genteel attempts to whitewash a very dubious character.
5
Gray?
How about a sense of priorities?
On the plus side, what folks are raving about most is that he was polite.
On the minus side, he enabled Sununu to kill a worldwide program to slow our ignition of forces of climate change that will devastate our human civilization, back when we still had time to avoid our humankind suicide.
I add the plus and the minus, and get the biggest minus you can imagine.
6
@Dick Purcell
Thank you for reminding us about Sununu and the Bush contribution to inaction on climate change. So many friends with whom I have spoken about Bush's death do not remember his record at all. Willie Horton rings a bell, AIDS no, Iran/Contra no, Clarence Thomas maybe, but certainly not the warnings from climate scientists that began in 1989.
2
Shades of grey?
Haven't seen many nuanced takes in the mainstream media on the last two big Republican deaths . MacCain or Bush.
Bush had Willie Horton, the 'glory" of the Iraq war and it could be argued he instigated Russian acceptance of Putin with his unabashed support of the horrible, horrible Boris Yeltsin.
But he was a decent guy.
Such inflexible, virulent sentiments are the foundations of a civil war and even if this particular editorial seems even handed and conciliatory the NYT has been one of those voices that encourages this intolerance, as is the Washington Post. I have my own experiences to form that opinion, as well as what is reported in the media.
This is the same intolerance advocated by Maxine Waters and Washing Post columnists like Jennifer Rubin who call on their followers to harass administration officials on the streets and at their homes. It also is the same extreme firmly rooted intolerance that motivates spasms of deadly violence. We still haven't been fully informed on the motives of the Las Vegas shooter, so one might even conclude the shooting war has already begun.
1
Nuanced to some is acceptable lying.
Not calling out those that lie, cheat, grift and murder, for profit 'n power, is what has brought America to it's current dilemma.
To downplay and or ignore and pardon the sins and wrongs wrought against We The People doesn't help anyone but the perps.
I'll chose to not say anything about said deceased, because the truth about Senior Bush is not good nor pretty. Nuanced or not.
3
Very well said, indeed, Mr. Bruni.
1
What should we make of the outsized public and media interest in the passing of President Bush?
He had been out of the Presidency since 1993 and largely out-of the-public eye until this week.
Always a quiet and self-effacing man, there was no reason to expect the kind of rock-star treatment from the public and the media his death is now receiving.
Is this simply an exercise in nostalgia for a time when elderly people like myself were 25 years younger?
Partly perhaps, but I’m certain there is much more to the story than that.
America 25 years ago was a more or less normal country and Bush was a normal man.
He loved one wife, never cavorted with porn stars, didn’t write tweets, raised good kids, worked hard, maintained decent and respectful relations with his political opponents, served in the military and liked dogs.
(Presidential historians will one day come to understand that liking dogs is an important requirement for achieving success in the Presidency.)
Comparing Bush to Trump is like comparing apples to oranges, or a normal President to a highly pathological one.
Bush’s last gift to the nation was dying when he did and giving the nation a glimpse of what we be again when Trump is disposed of.
4
Good column. Glad you came around - your last one was disturbingly near-saccharine hagiography. And this one explores a deep problem in our culture - fantasy searches for simplicity, the ideal and perfection. I feel that motive derives from our poor education system, where things are not explored realistically or deeply, and the dumbing down and artifices of our mass media, particularly entertainment.
But it may derive more from emotional insecurity and the alienation of industrialization and loss of real, lasting community. Modern "life" seems absorbed in bling, celebrity, and movie quotes. Distractions from reality. Distractions that not just coincidentally are convenient for the wealthy and powerful to continue their plunder and dominance.
"But we do seem to be getting worse at complexity. At nuance. At allowing for the degree to which virtue and vice commingle in most people, including our leaders, and at understanding that it’s not a sign of softness to summon some respect for someone with a contrary viewpoint and a history of mistakes. It’s a sign of maturity. "
Yes, yes, yes, Frank, we do seem to be getting worse at complexity. But no, no, no, this is not the sum of the issue that keeps me awake and distracts me from my work. Keeping focused on one single thing has become challenging enough.
If you want to convince me that there is good and bad in everyone, you'll need to point out Trump's virtue, because it's a really lean mixture as far as I can tell. What he is doing can no longer be called "mistakes." And I am waiting for that first sign of maturity.
Yes, GHWB deserves to be honored. No, we have already given all of the benefit of our doubt to Trump. Sadly, this is the context that we are in, and it makes GHWB look all the better.
One of your best pieces. And so needed now.
3
I avoid social media like the plague, and couldn't care less what people on social media are saying about George H.W. Bush.
But I do read The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal every day, and have, frankly, been stunned at the hagiography of Bush 41 spewing forth from virtually every article about him in these publications. Talk about "getting worse at complexity." Most reporters and columnists writing about the former president utterly failed to provide a balanced view of this man.
Certainly, Trump makes Bush 41 look like Abraham Lincoln. But using Trump as a measuring stick for anyone/anything is of no value. We should be measuring Bush 41 against the best and brightest, and by that measure, he was a mediocre president, to put it generously (and not dwelling on his despicable, racist presidential campaign). Indeed, if you asked people after Bush 41 left office what his greatest accomplishments were, you'd get blank stares -- and not because people weren't following the news during his presidency.
Frank, I find your comment insulting that just because many of us don't think the hagiography of Bush 41 is merited, we somehow lack the "ability to hold two thoughts at once."
Is that sufficiently "nuanced" for you?
231
@ALB Thanks for saving me comment-composition-time by using the key word 'hagiography' twice in your commentary.
13
@ALB If the current President were dignified, respectful, devoted to public service and obviously trying to do his very best for the country, there may not have been such an outpouring of sentiment for George Bush. People are partly mourning the passing of civility, of a time where running the country wasn't such a brutal endeavour and they are nostalgic for a President who acts Presidential. Donald Trump has made 41 and 43 seem greater than they really were.
31
@ALB I think you summed it up very well, ALB. Like you, I've been kind of shocked at the hagiography throughout the mainstream, but I attribute this in part to the contrast with the creep now inhabiting the WH. For example, on network news last night the fact that he'd shown just basic good manners for once was the lead story. I think that proves our point. Thank you. Pete McGuire, ATL
5
This column is not just about George Bush. Thank you Mr. Bruni for tackling the issues of nuance and complexity. All of us are yearning too much for simple answers, for black and white. As you point out, we need to better exercise and use our intellect and our maturity so that we can find wisdom rather than the empty facile logic of a twitter feed.
2
The war crimes embodied in the first Gulf War make that Commander-in-Chief unredeemable.
I can't understand why this is even a story. Somebody said something and some people like and others did not. He got unfollowed and then followed. So what? Is this the representation of the Zeitgest of a country? Or is it just the stupidity of twitter. Maybe the issue is to give too much credence to twitter which is nothing but a narcisistic tool for the society at large. Shades of gray? Very gray! The man invaded Panama and started the gulf war to get rid of both Noriega and Saddam Hussein... both of which were under the CIA payroll.... when Bush was head of the CIA.... So Bush wasn't a monster... but he had deep ties with the Saudis and the oil industry... But what I'm afraid more than the lack of shades of gray in twitter is the lack of shades of gray in the american history books.
2
Bravo! Particularly that last paragraph.
1
Thank you Messrs Behar, Davis and Bruni for showing maturity in the face of the oh-so-delicate-(fake)-self righteousness that people from all sides can’t seem to contain much these days.
Just because one has the privilege of “free speech” one needn’t expend it for some temporary feel goodness.
1
The all or nothing antipathy or support towards George Herbert Walker Bush, following his passing, is the same kind of black-and-white thinking that installed Donald Trump in the Oval Office.
Yes, President Bush was light years better than the president with an asterisk in office today. President Bush also had a lot of room for moral improvement, for the reasons cited in this op-ed and others. He made some of those improvements while in office and even more after he was in office, and he took other failings with him to his deathbed.
In 2016, perfect was the deadly enemy of good, as too many Democrats and moderate Republicans bypassed Hillary Clinton and either stayed home, throwing the election, or voted for a dictator-loving, climate change denying, neo-Nazi and conspiracy terrorist-flattering con artist to the Oval Office because Hillary had flaws.
Let's be smarter going forward - ally with your leaders on what they do right, and do your civic duty to hold their feet to the fire on what they do wrong - because the alternative is a leader in Washington who is offensively, painfully and egregiously wrong ALL of the time.
4
As a public figure, 41 was atrocious. From trying to cover up Pinochet's 1976 assassination of Orlando Letelier in DC when he was head of the CIA, to serving as Ronald Reagan's Vice President for 8 years & aiding Reagan's awful actions, to exploiting white racism to get elected with the Willie Horton ads (which was a new low in political dirty tricks, only surpassed by 45), to continuing Reagan's deadly homophobic neglect of the AIDS crisis, to pushing for war with Iraq, setting off a domino effect that's left our country, he was not on the right side of history.
His track record doesn't show him to be a "decent" human being, frankly. Just because he didn't grope women during photo ops- oh wait, he did that too.
Recognizing that he's a human being with family who are saddened by his death doesn't mean he gets a free pass. The hagiographies are nauseating to anyone with a working memory of those times and the death he caused and the damage he did to the fabric of our country and other countries.
11
The convenience of Jesus Christ is that he only lived for a few decades, left little recorded history, and died a very painful, public death, the details of which are largely agreed about in the retelling. That makes it easy for Christians since to put him on a pedestal they might not otherwise elevate him to had they actually known the man and dealt with him at work, around the community, in their synagogue.
G. H. Bush suffers the same fate that most of us endure. There's no debating our humanity, our flaws, our weaknesses, especially in an age of technology that provides all of them to anyone interested in a little research.
Requiescat in pace President Bush. If there's no mercy for you there isn't any for the rest of us, either.
2
Maybe if every establishment columnist and t.v. anchor person didn't fall over themselves heaping praise on GHWB, we could find the measure of nuance that Bruni seeks. All this cozying up recalls Izzy Stone's warning decades ago for journalist not to get friendly with those in power.
8
Genuine inflection points in history are rare. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was one of a handful of such occasions since World War 2. Events of such gravity provide abundant opportunities for missteps of huge consequence, yet President Bush trod the path like an expert ballet dancer.
Resisting the political temptation to gloat over the demise of the Eastern Bloc, President Bush chose the wiser path in order not to embarrass his Soviet counterpart.
Supporting the reunification of Germany, over the objections of some of his most important NATO allies, puts President Bush on the right side of a history that he had a large part in making.
Throwing all available US pressure into supporting President Gorbachev against the August 1991 coup attempt was important in retaining the gains made in 1989.
President H.W Bush was the right man in the right place at the right time, and for that the world may be thankful.
Acknowledging that he was a decent man does not require ignoring his failings. Though I'll never forgive him for the vile Willie Horton campaign (or GWB for the vile way he treated McCain in the SC primary), I can recognize that they both did some things right. Like other Democrats here, I'd gladly take either of them over what we have now. At least they weren't narcissistic sociopaths.
1
Just the fact that he volunteered to fight in WW2 straight out of high school when he absolutely did not need to do so (he could have gotten deferrals for going to college; his family had plenty of money and connections) puts him in the positive side of my good guy/bad guy ledger. He was willing to die fighting for his country.
Compare this with our current so-called president who said avoiding STDs was his personal Vietnam, while his peers were dying and getting maimed. Shameful.
2
This is so spot on. Because of our tribalism, we seem unable to find any nuance or gray area. Trump is either god or satan, as was Obama. Saying, "well I like what he said or did here, but I hate with he did or said here" is somehow unacceptable to the vocal Twitter mob of the far Left or Far Right. No President is perfect, but George HW Bush was, by all accounts, an honorable and ethical man. Your hatred of all things GOP or Dem doesn't change reality.
1
I’ve been a liberal all of my life, but the nastiest political fight I ever got into was 30 years ago, when I suggested at a party with progressive friends that the Democratic losses to Nixon in 1968 and ‘72 had been partially caused by the highjacking of the party by ultra-radicals and anarchists. Well you’d have thought I had declared myself a member of the John Birch Society. Again, I’m a liberal—but some liberals are just too self-righteous to entertain or sustain critical thought.
How many people on twitter attacked Behar for his praise of President Bush. I did see all that many attacks on Bush. If anything people are going over the top in praise of Bush. In part because of Trump.
As for Kavanaugh. He was participating in a hearing to be confirmed to SCOTUS, not on trial. He himself in his attacks on B. Clinton did not give the benefit of the doubt to others.
This is a trite column.
I wouldn't vilify Behar for his statements and agree that more balanced views of politicians are greatly needed. However, the outpouring of compliments/praise I saw almost universally in the media seemed revisionist when it comes to Bush's legacy. In addition to his poor economic leadership, let's not forget Bush's role in Iran-Contra (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html) and due to secrecy, we have no idea what he did as director of the CIA in the 1970's, but they were up to no good in many parts of the world during his leadership.
4
When assessing Bush's "decency," remember the name "Lee Atwater," who served as Bush's campaign manager. Atwater was one of the dirtiest, most dishonest characters in American politics, and the father of the lying and the anti-democratic scams (viz WI, GA) now endemic with today's Republican Party. The "decent" Bush had no qualms about riding Atwater's indecent tricks to power. Country-club WASP politeness is not the same thing as decency.
8
The virtues of silence are relevant here. Not everyone needs to comment on everything.
2
Good thing we didn't have social media when Richard Nixon passed in 1994.
1
It is a sad sign of the times that the number of one’s Twitter followers has any importance.
2
Do you think that just maybe, Frank, that you are over amplifying a reaction to a tweet that pretty much nobody would have paid any attention to if the rest of the media hadn't decided that it is some sort of symbolic battle for the soul of the nation? The commentatoratti seem perfectly capable of constructing their own bubble.
GHW Bush, ex-head of the CIA, arranged the sale of missiles to Iran in exchange for them NOT releasing 445 American hostages until after the presidential election (thereby sinking Carter's reelection). He was the intermediary between Nixon and the brother of the prosecutor who was investigating Spiro Agnew, with the (justice obstructing) message to "back off." The prosecutor didn't, but GHW later became Regan's V.P.
3
It's a brawl and, it must be said, the liberals didn't bring it on. Still, a brawl is a brawl. And you don't bring Robert's Rules to a brawl. Not if you want to survive. A fire hose, maybe.
2
History books are the place for criticism and brutal truth telling. Obituaries and eulogies are meant to remind us all that we will all soon or late be going the way of all flesh.
It is a time to find something, even if it is miniscule, good to note about a person upon their death.
Isaiah said,
"All our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment, and all of us like leaves wither, and our iniquities like the wind carry us away."
It is easy to catalog the sins of others but when someone has just died, it would seem best that if you don't have something pleasant to say, saying nothing at all is best.
Think about what your adversaries will be saying about you when you go to your long home.
2
There is saying nice things about an elderly ex president who has died but this over the top and excessive coverage is ridiculous and embarrassing. After reading some of these maudlin homages about Bush one can't help trying set the record straight about the serious shortcomings. He was cute as a ninety something sky diver and collector of funny socks but he was not lovable before and during his presidency. And remember Clarence Thomas.
5
Yes, Frank, we simply musn't say that American politics is rotten, as are so many of its participants and beneficiaries. And that otherwise perfectly nice men with cute grand kids do perfectly horrible things to other people's less privileged grand kids. And their grandparents.
You do know "points of light" was advertising blather, written a well-paid third party?
And all the dead are all saints.
This is what happens when people are so well paid that they're immune from public policy. They simply can't understand why folks can't be as measured and reasonable as themselves.
1
God forbid we be kind and human for just a few minutes.
1
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald ...
3
So those who consider George H.W. Bush was an horrible person, will do everything possible to silent those who have a different opinion.
Are democracy and freedom of speech things of the past? Are we living in a "popular" Republic ?
1
History is largely a matter of perspective. And you are always wrong if you are convinced that there are right answers when it comes to public policy. History needs to be viewed in the context of its time, and individuals need to be viewed by intention. Did Bush seek to destroy the country/world, or did he try his best but you just disagree? It the former is true to you, we have no hope. If the latter is correct, please vote and participate.
1
Thanks for this. An adult moment much needed. I have no idea who Behar is - I live a blissfully Twitter-free life - but he would appear to be a more fully formed person than many of those who followed him. We all need to be reminded of what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, that “the line between good and evil runs not between people but straight through the human heart.” We’d better start accepting that we are all fallible and are all often wrong, even (or perhaps especially) the best of those who strive in the arena every day, or American democracy is finished.
2
@Michael Hogan
Dear Michael Hogan,
Thank you for the quote from Mr Solzhenitsyn and the reminder that self righteousness is not pretty.
We need more men and women who conduct themselves like President George WH Bush did. We especially need more people like Mr. Bush as president of the United States. He defined refinement, breeding, style, humility and kindness. He came from great wealth but it was never on display. He had quiet gentle ways and yet was no pushover. He was about a more gentler kinder time in our society and one that is greatly lacking today. I do wish sometimes that we could return to those times and maybe with the passing of President Bush we will. Maybe with some luck we may find a man or woman president who will follow in his footsteps. He was not perfect but as close to perfect as one can get.
2
@WPLMMT In humans I wonder what is meant by "breeding"? I know what it means in dogs and cattle.
If one looks for critical flaw in another person ... and public figures are an easy target due to visibility for one’s doing this to ... the issue may largely be about the one looking. Never mind trying to appreciate context or lasting degree of “error” for cases lacking drastitic and intentional malfeasance; it’s just what is often done. To say that President Bush made mistakes which would have been better not to have been made is hardly saying much. So? Common errors get corrected one way or other with time. President Bush lived a long life; and it was good one for him because of his noted public service, and for us because of his noted public service. Good in the sense of “good enough.” It may be that being highly critical of those “out there,” including President Bush, and remaining so is more about denying one’s own imperfections than anything about them of real substance. Who wants to beat himself up? Let be someone else! But speaking at the time of something done or proposed that doesn’t seem right is not to be condemned insofar as this leads to constructive dialogue. Nonetheless, it may worth accepting that we live in a democracy where it doesn’t always go the way one wants it to go. President Bush helped this nation far more than he hurt it, if he hurt it at all. For that, I think, we should be grateful and honor him.
2
This column is the equivalent of “um ... I have a friend...” Talk about yourself, Frank. You screwed up. You’re the one we’re complaining about, as a gay man, who didn’t mention Bush’s legacy of ignoring the tragedy. Yes, sometimes, we lack nuance ... but YOU messed up. Own it.
6
@Blair Fell
Amen, Blair. Bruni will never own it.
@Blair Fell
Dear Blair Fell,
Self righteous indignation is just a log to hide behind. Come out into the true light of understanding that "...all of us like leaves wither, and our iniquities like the wind carry us away. Me, you and George HW Bush.
All the best Mr. Fell,
Garth
1
I voted against GHWB twice, didn't like it when he was President, and was dismayed at the continuation of Reaganism that his administration represented. But in terms of personality and temperament he was soooo much better than you-know-who---GHWB's blandness and like of bite as a political figure seem like cardinal virtues in view of the WH tweetstorms we endure now.
2
Decades ago I had a white professor in college who told me a story about being stuck in public transportation in Atlanta saying "oh my god I was so afraid-there were so many people crowded in the station and I was the only white face there!"
I remember being too hurt and too naive to know how to respond. And yes I would respond much differently today. And I have also learned to look at my part in these not so micro racial aggressions (and by my part, I mean my then inability to speak up for myself).
Now, this woman was and is very important to me intellectually and personally. But her words were racist and hurtful. So I had/have a choice. Do I cut this woman out of my life and deprive myself (and her) of mentor-ship and friendship?
Or can I allow myself to have a balanced and nuanced view of the situation, and realize that it's just a part of her whole picture?
Also, can I apply this same criteria to lovers and friends and family and coworkers? And presidents?
I am mad as hell at GHB's racial & AIDS legacies. My friends died because of it. Literally died. But was he the anti-christ? Or is that Bill Clinton (the first 'black' president), whose prison "reform" policies affect my people to this very day?
Honestly, if I self-imposed that kind of litmus test I might never talk to another white or straight human again.
So I'm left with complexity and nuance. Which is maybe not as satisfying as absolutes. But I can breathe.
2
@wesley steven rowell
Dear Wesley Steven Rowell ,
The human race is an anomaly. We can be very good and we can be abysmally evil. Let's try to be good. Mr. Bush certainly did some wicked things but he also did some good.
So as members of a fallen race, shall we extol his virtues or feed our angst?
I don't have a pat answer.
All the best,
Garth
Mr. Bruni
Bravo!!!
You put your finger on one of the key issues of the day and reflective of most of the Opinion comments.
If you mention Trump all fairness, balance and honesty leave!
I am new here - less than 2 weeks. But let me share with you some obsevations:
* Most want to talk about the Presidents warts, moral failings and less than desired demeanor, many which I condem. But...
* No-one can even allude to one single positive accomplisment. Not even an inference. For example:
# Today Sephens and Collins Op Ed lambasted Trump
through the first lady - "fanciest red decorative trees."
# Yesterday, the same only then the foil was 41.
# positive from Bret and Collins were "he don't screw up G-
20 ," NFL and doesn't come to NY on weekends to call up
traffic.
In 2 weeks I haven't seen a mention of 3% GDP growth (Obama 1.5% last 6 quarters) or...
Criminal justice reform and...
Reporting 2,000 illegal felons to make America safer...or...
The new USMCA trade pact helping U.S. farmers...
Attempt to denucklerize North Korea, sanctions, visit and...
I could go on but you understand the point.
I truly believe that Trumps "rough, gruff, obscene lying New Yourk
Real estate salesman and marketer should batt!led constantly the local tabloids. He has chosen to by-pass the MSM via Twit!ter. He loves a fight, has to lunch back always, ignores the likes of Jim Acosta and so on...
Thus the hatred.
1
But these are all fictions, that’s why they aren’t mentioned
I agree with the sentiments. Our heroes are the more impressive as they have the same faults as you and me.
1
Please, let those who have no faults of their own condemn Behar.
3
MAGA fanatics can certainly hold two conflicting thoughts at once. Why not the rest of us?
I have no doubt that George the 41st was a nice man. But he brought us the gift that keeps on giving: Clarence Thomas.
7
AIDS seems to be the hot button issue, yet is was George W. Bush who earmarked more money towards research and the like against this hideous disease. Not Clinton, nor Obama. But a Republican. The Left apparently doesn't take kindly to anything other than their mantra. So much for the word liberal. Do they even know what that word means?
I agree that now is not the time to share all of my grievances with George HW Bush. It's just that he has been the author of much of our partisan tribalism. When he swam with the likes as Lee Atwater and spawn the likes of Newt Gingrich what else would you expect.
1
"Twitter is a hellscape." - Marc Maron during his interview of Ta-Nehisi Coates. Both used to be active Twitter users. Then they came to their senses.
Chile, Panama, Iran-Contra, Clarence Thomas, Willie Horton, opposition to civil rights legislation, opposition to help for AIDS sufferers.
Agree, completely.
He was a human being with good and bad qualities like everyone.
I don;t recall NYT ever been nice to Bush Sr while he was alive. Looks like the Wild West adage applies to Republicans as well.
What happened to the shades of gray? Ask the Republicans and their ilk.
He may have been a child of privilege - but he didn’t abuse it. I’ll take skull
and bones over bone spurs any day.
2
I love Frank Bruni! His ability to see nuance, and try to restore some grace to the world, is beyond laudable. I am a progressive/liberal, but I greatly appreciate #41's backing of the Americans with Disabilities Act and his measured response to the complexities of Middle East politics. It is only the extremists on both sides of the spectrum who need to peddle their hate in times like this. Godspeed, George H. W. Bush.
1
If the Founding Fathers, Andrew Jackson,
James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Williiam McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan been civil good mannered moderate and gray this America would not exist. Most humble humane empathetic values and interests are black and white.
The confluence of Donald Trump and George H.W. Bush enhances and magnifies Bush and diminishes and marginalizes Trump. But that view lacks context and perspective.
Bush and Trump were both born white Anglo- Saxon rich white powerful privileged male businessmen and politicians. They have much more in common with each other than either has with Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Any rich man going to Heaven is less likely than a camel going through the eye of a needle. And politicians aka Caesar are no more honorable.
1
"The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones."--Shakespeare
It seems that a long life after public service turns this on its head. I'm pleased to see the appreciation of George H. W. Bush's gentlemanly manner and bipartisanship.
The last time I used that Shakespeare quote I was talking about Lyndon Johnson. So many remember him for Vietnam, but I think that's because all of the good he did, we take for granted--Voting Rights Act. Civil Rights Act, public television, just to name a handful.....
There's one thing at work here beyond biased or unbiased memories & recollections of Geo W Bush and that is the human trait to sanctify the newly departed.
If you or anyone you care for deeply has lost a close family member or friend, you may have observed this phenomenon. Only the good things, the lovable aspects, the deep caring, seem to occupy the memories. After a year or two a more balanced recollection starts replacing the sainthood bestowed upon the departed.
I've experienced this process directly & observed it in others.
The question becomes what is the responsibility of the press to expose / remind the public of good & bad, loved & hated aspects of a person's complicated history, especially before burial? Tricky.
I for one despised Geo W Bush as a president but slowly gained respect for him as an elder statesman. What do I feel today? Mixed emotions.
The tendency to look at things in terms of black and white and ignore everything in between is a failure of all extremists especially in our fractured politics. We progressives tend to forget that our demand for a 'perfect' Hillary Clinton was one of the reasons she lost the election. But it is also true that conservative extremists in the desire to create a SC compiant to their will ignored the corruption of their chosen hero.
Sometimes at rare moments both democrats and even a rare republican will express a wish for compromise which demands the ability to look at the points of view of others. If we ever want a government that works for the needs of all this is the only way to go and we need to get over our rigid righteousness to do so.
1
Well stated and may it be followed by all thinking people
1
Thinking about nuance and shades of grey isn't easy at the best of times. Right now, we are nowhere close to the best of times.
I disagreed vehemently with Bush Sr. on many matters of policy and government action. That said, I had little doubt that he wanted to improve the country as a whole. I disagreed often with his approach, his vision and his actions, but I can acknowledge that he got some things right.
An author I used to read, Orson Scott Card, had a concept of a Speaker for the Dead--somebody who would tell the deceased's story, both the blemishes and the shining points of light, unvarnished. This concept would be useful in these times. We need to remember that we are human, with good and bad points. We can have heroes, but even heroes have feet of clay, and those should not be ignored.
1
Frank Bruni, with his characteristically insightful column today, reminds us of the human element which has been present throughout 5,000 years of our recorded history, but which has been under unprecedented assault, at least politically, for the past quarter-century. It often has been noted that to err is human, but to forgive is divine. We not only have drifted alarmingly toward the inability, or worse unwillingness, to forgive, but we also forget how to be understanding and tolerant among those with whom we share differences.
During the process, we incur the risk of elevating the most grotesque among us, e.g. Donald Trump, via recognition, if only of the worst he offers, while suppressing, due more perhaps to perceived imperfections, and possibly misfits to our preconceived notions, those who otherwise have achieved monumental merit in their lives.
Most great American leaders have exhibited significant attributes as well as substantial faults. Historians, with the benefit of hindsight, generally have recognized such cases; the American people, as a whole, not so much so. The populace tends at once to idealize and to idolize or demonize, as the case may be. Is it a stretch to believe that a more realistic, more empathetic America someday may look back and view Donald Trump as an object to be pitied as the victim of a terribly deficient upbringing rather than a figure to be reviled as an unrepentant self-promoter who is incapable of harboring empathy and respect for norms?
There is a major problem with truth in this society, and not just within the circles that defend Trump. Mr. Bruni's article is a clear example of the relativist thinking that attempts to bury our ability to discern truth by attempting to equate facts without attempting to get to the underlying causes of things, and then giving equal weight to unequal events.
The Willie Horton issue was but one episode of Bush's reprehensible life. The sanctions imposed on Iraq resulted in a minimum to tens of thousands of children dying.
Bush headed the CIA, an institution that most people seem to have forgotten wrote the book on interfering in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states (no, people, Putin did not create this type of activity). Bush's tenure at the CIA included overseeing Operation Condor (which is linked to political assassinations such as that of Orlando Letelier, killed in Washington, D.C. by a car bomb) and support for brutal dictators around the world.
The idea that truth can be determined by what benefits a person is a canard that is all too popular in this country. It's a big part of why people accept Trump, and lavishing praise on Bush 41 is right in line with accepting Trump.
1
@Tom
I would not know where to start with responding to you. You have more sympathy for Iraq than the Kuwaitis Sadddam massacred? Or his own people?
@Ny SurgeonYou live in a country founded on slavery and genocide. Start there.
"A person can deplore Trump’s recklessly inflammatory characterizations of illegal immigration and treatment of migrants while acknowledging that secure borders are a legitimate concern. But that’s not an analysis I hear often on cable news."
Huh? I hear this on MSM all the time!
4
I'm glad for Mr. Bruni that he seems not to have lost friends, colleagues, community during the Bush years of neglect. Lived history doesn't seem to play much of a role in his assessment of Bush. To recognize Bush's cruel indifference to AIDS and LGBTQ issues does not diminish his achievements. It's called history rather than blind deification.
7
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do not believe that President Bush caused a single individual to contract AIDS.
1
Great column, Frank. I am as Left as they come and agree with you wholeheartedly.
There are outrage machines on the Left and on the Right.
They are cheap, manipulative, and often the only ones who benefit are those doing the shouting. Whether it be looking to boost their Twitter followers or simply trying to burnish their credits with their respective movements.
We're going to end up with the Khmer Rouge on this path for both parties. That's where this outrage leads to.
Once again, great work on this piece.
5
There is one thing that continues to bother me about 41. He promoted his son into the presidency. This resulted in destabilizing the entire Middle East with a huge loss of life and resettlement difficulties that continue today.
I cannot comprehend how a farther knowing his son's record could ever have fostered him on this country. He was such a poor choice.
Sorry to say this in the light of his passing but sometimes the truth needs to be said.
8
You didn’t mention the Iran-Contra affair. Bush pardoned the 5 men who would have testified about his involvement in this before the trial began. This may be his greatest failure.
8
The point is that when a person dies is not the time for an historical evaluation unless the deceased is truly an evil person. Simple manners and consideration for the family demand no less. Unfortunately on social media the hyper partisans are always the loudest voices. They think any positive remark about the other side is tantamount to a betrayal. This is certainly true of Trump as it was of Obama, and to a lesser extent of W and Clinton.
1
In his book "The Righteous Mind" psychologist Jonathan Haidt claims one of humans' most powerful emotions is disgust. In other words, one of the easiest emotions to trigger in people, especially for a skilled demagogue. He discusses the gustatory cortex, and how in animals it's used to process information from the nose and tongue, and how in humans it is used to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable people ("disgusting" and "not disgusting").
In today's political climate, liberals are finally catching on that conservatives are so disgusted with them that the very idea of cooperation, much less concession, is morally repulsive to them. Nevernevernever. How should liberals respond? As the author points out - not to adopt the same tactics, and find every single thing about the right reprehensible and worthy of our disgust.
1
The mythology created about McCain and Bush is mind boggling. Of course, the media lay in wait for these events, scripts prepared. A cheap and easy story to cover for an entire week. If they are not sentimentalized and lionized, how would the coverage be justified? I don't mind if newly deceased, famous, politicians are cast in a favorable light, as decent manners dictate, but the news blanketing the deaths of both is frankly ridiculous and unseemly.
McCain and Bush are so important, not because people naturally cared about them, but because the press does. If all the television cameras were not rolling, most Americans would have shrugged their shoulders, and gone on about their business.
So many concepts assault us, that its hard to keep count. If Bush is praised again for being patrician, I will break a molar, grinding my teeth. Desert Storm was a discretionary war, that caused massive suffering, needlessly. The Iran Contra situation merited impeachment. The truth is that by and large 90% the public doesn't know anything significant about the records of either men because the press produces pablum, and we won't know anything more after this, for the same reason.
The lengthy funerals, with all the trimmings, make me think about the costs. This week, in its pomp and coverage begins to resemble the days after Kennedy was shot, but it doesn't resemble the authentic grief and gravity of those times in the slightest.
9
GHWB was the very essence of patrician noblesse oblige. A scion of the ruling class with his many fawning admirers.
3
Western Christian theology has long acknowledged that human beings are "at the same time just and sinner" (simul justus et peccator). The concept and phraseology go back to St. Augustine, which is why it's expressed in Latin. "Liberal" Lutheran Pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber has the phrase tattooed on her body. As a "people," contemporary Americans seem not to be able to hold that concept.
2
Frank,
While I agree with your perspective in general, I believe you are wrong about one thing. The deep divide we currently find ourselves in is overwhelmingly the fault of one side -- Republicans. And they have yet to show any remorse or efforts at conciliation (save a handful nearing exit signs).
We are in a tribal war. "The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast." But only one side is responsible for this, and unless they back off as a party and acknowledge their crimes, the left would be foolish to offer any conciliation at this time. Rather, first win the elections in 2020 -- then, consider conciliation.
6
@PT The democrats are also very much responsible for the divide but they haven't played the game as well. They have fought social security reform and medicare reform when it was badly needed primarily for political reasons. I do think for the most part the democrats do believe somewhat in democracy in contrast to most republicans who only believe in political power.
I really hate the phrase "Elections have consequences." President Obama was elected for two terms, the GOP did everything in their power to negate the consequences of both his elections - including obstructing his ability to nominate and get approval for his court appoints. To use that phrase as justification for what the GOP is doing is a travesty!
7
Moral integrity may insidiously dissolve into moral purity in the minds of the righteous while judging the other. When it does victimhood breeds intolerance and an often dualistic perception of humanity. Any bad (ie past faults) disqualify the subject from any praise because that would validate the bad. This is verboten. All is a black and white in the struggle to either protect perceived privilege or overthrow the privileged oppressor.
Humans are ever so much more complicated than this. No one is without sin, yet it seems it is preferable to focus on the sins rather than the good parts of character for many in their quest to self-justify and to vilify the wrong-minded. Or, just as one-sided, many will only praise the good and ignore the unsavory to defend one of their own. Both these types seem to like screaming at each other and indulging in self-congratulatory denunciations and proclamations.
Perhaps a better outcome lies in celebrating the good, acknowledging the bad and accepting, even the loving, the imperfect nature of us all. We all stink is some way, why must we always dwell in it?
1
I'm a gay man who was of age during Reagan/Bush, and I think it's sometimes hard even for those of us who were witnesses to recall fully the cultural context. A straight friend, at whose house I just spent Thanksgiving, asked me back then in a tone of shock and wonder, "Did you ever dream you'd see the day when we'd have to fear drinking from a water fountain?" Such was the general atmosphere of naiveté and misinformation. When Diana embraced AIDS charities, the Queen supposedly asked her, "Why can't you do something nice?" It was a different world. For me, it was enraging to hear Pres. Bush's answer to the question, "What would you say if one of your children told you he were gay?" But I think his views evolved in 30 years. That's a process we can wish for ourselves, too.
1
Frank, here’s what’s at stake in the “obituary wars.”
An honest appraisal of Bush the man and president demands that we recognize and honor his heroic military service. That is indisputable. And give him points for a few (not all) of his foreign policy efforts. But where we get bogged down is heaping accolades on him for acting with dignity and grace. Isn’t that expected of a president? Would we be praising him for that except for the lack of dignity and grace in our current president, not to mention in Bush’s own swaggering frat-boy son?
And, another thing to consider is what his dignity and grace disguised – the cut-throat, racist dirty tricks, war-as-solution to challenges, the Iran-Contra scandal.
What has had a more lasting effect on our country – Bush’s kinder gentler demeanor, or the racism, dirty tricks, war, and scandals?
So an honest appraisal is a prayer that (to plunder some Who lyrics) we don’t get fooled again by the mask of grace and dignity.
“I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again”
Because if we do allow ourselves to get fooled again it’s:
“Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss” – or worse.
5
You are suggesting that the Left is becoming what the Right became 20 years ago: an audience caught in a feedback loop with its media, making everything black & white, caricaturing and demonizing its opposition in a frenzy of fear and hate. You are right to warn of the danger.
On the other hand, Republican politicians today do our work for us, caricaturing themselves beyond our wildest ability to demonize. No, GHW Bush was not as blatantly corrupt or dishonest as his son, or as Trump. But it would be hard to imagine either of them without the steady Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Fox deterioration of increasing vulgarity and dishonesty. It would be nice if the media itself showed some nuance and objectivity, and stopped pretending that politics was a font of decency & vision before Trump arrived. Some of us suspect that, when the time comes, you'll be praising the character and accomplishment of a deceased Trump, just as you whitewashed Reagan. And if you do, it will be because the GOP of that near future has lowered the bar again.
1
"We like our villains without redemption and our heroes without blemish,"
In that case, we will always be disappointed. Grow up, folks. No one is without flaws or mistakes and that is what is killing our politics and our discourse on almost all matters.
When did we become like this? Unable to tolerate anything other than 100% purity. No one is 100% pure and makes all the right decisions all of the time. And when we look to elect the next person to the highest office in the land, if we insist on perfection, we will always lose.
We need the good to outweigh the bad by a very large margin and try and understand the person in totality.
2
We’re becoming a nation of simpletons, unable to discern complex arguments or have considered opinions that can honor the good in a person while understanding and repudiating the nasty parts. GHWB was the sum of his parts and neither as good or as evil as supporters and detractors make him out to be. In my opinion, his good parts will be longer remembered than the bad but any honest appraisal of his life and work has to acknowledge both sides.
2
Terrific column. With thanks and hope.
1
You can't judge the public based on the reaction of Twitter trolls or the vicious online commenters on the Times website or other sites. They represent the worst of us, and the sooner the news people stop giving them any attention, the better.
3
Right on, Frank. Thank you for being so reasonable in this time of terrible polarization.
What happened to shades of gray? Writers such as Frank Bruni abused them to cover up and obfuscate parts of history they don't like or don't want to come to light. For a presidential candidate to intentionally play upon racial divisions was dangerous and irresponsible. No amount of distraction or excuse-making will change that
2
Thank you for this, Frank. On balance, I think #41 did more harm than good, and I was angry at him for most of the four years he was in office (enough people have listed his crimes and misdeeds that I don't need to repeat the litanies here). He was often hypocritical, saying different things in public than he believed in private. At the same time, he was a Republican who believed in science and saw that the environment was an important issue that we couldn't (or at least shouldn't) ignore. Why are there none of those left? Surely we must recognize that people, even presidents, are complex creatures, capable of doing good as well as evil.
2
Here's something else worth reflecting on about the late George Bush Sr: He gave sanctuary to Orlando Bosch, a notorious mass-murdering terrorist with American blood on his hands. Orlando Bosch masterminded the blowing up of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 in 1976. Among the 73 people killed were several teenagers and a pregnant 23-year-old. In that same year he also masterminded the assassination of the Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier and the young American researcher, Ronni Moffitt, on Embassy Row in Washington D.C. Former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh called Bosch an "unrepentant terrorist."
In 1989, Joe D. Whitley, associate attorney general of the United States, denied his asylum request, saying "Orlando Bosch has repeatedly expressed and demonstrated a willingness to cause indiscriminate injury and death. His actions have been those of a terrorist, unfettered by laws or human decency, threatening and inflicting injury without regard to the identity of his victims. The United States cannot grant shelter to someone who will, from that shelter, advocate the visitation of injury and death upon the property or person of innocent civilians. The security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credible other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists, whose target we too often become. We could not shelter Dr. Bosch and maintain our credibility in this respect."
President Bush Sr. overruled the Justice Department and granted asylum to Orlando Bosch.
1
Right on Frank Bruni. One thing that lefties and righties all insist on and that’s absolute adherence to the narrative. Whenever I have expressed those “two thoughts at the same time” opinions, I get accused by both of being a “wishy washy” moderate who doesn’t believe in anything. Wrong! I believe passionately in pragmatism! Rest In Peace Mr. President.
3
"But we do seem to be getting worse at complexity. At nuance. At allowing for the degree to which virtue and vice commingle in most people, including our leaders, and at understanding that it’s not a sign of softness to summon some respect for someone with a contrary viewpoint and a history of mistakes. It’s a sign of maturity. And it just might be a path back to a better place."
Nicely put, but we are also worse at critical reasoning. We have lots more air time/screen time for news, yet the TV and radio outlets seem to use less time to ask the right questions and get solid answers. Fox news has co-opted those media to "he said v. he said" and "you decide" formats, where unsubstantiated beliefs become "news" (because that increases rating!) Thus, for example, even CNN allows lots of idiotic bloviating to go largely unchallenged, because the exchanges are "exciting." Lot's of heat but not much light.
Twitter (and all of its cousins) allow us to act like spoiled brats. We flame and we pontificate, but we don't seem to think very much.
I hated many thing Bush did (as I hated many things Clinton and Obama did). But I can step back and say it is sad the man died and he did attempt to perform meaningful public service.
I will even say that about Trump (even though he has given me orders of magnitude more things to hate) when he dies.
Showing the orthodoxy Bruni describes on the left ultimately hurts the cause, making us look like ignorant zealots. Not everything is strategic, needing to be presented as black and white. Real progress only occurs when the grey is recognized and appreciated.
RS I agree that GHWB tried to spend his life in public service. Sadly, as of no
Indeed! So many of my fellow 'Liberals' in Brooklyn are actually 'Illiberal', intolerant of anyone who disagrees not only with their opinions but their definitions. I hope it is just a matter of maturity and aging will knock some wisdom and compassion into them.
Sadly, in the world of social media, the loudest voices are rarely the wisest ones and the bullies often prevail. Long live nuance!
2
No one could ever say Frank Bruni suffers fools gladly, but it is likewise obvious to anyone who has read his pieces over the years that a keen sense of morals is both rudder and compass. Shades of gray indeed! Isn't any relationship--from siblings to friends, partners and spouses, and colleagues a commingling of black and white? Compassion does not equal weakness, not does tolerance equal submission. I have had many issues with 41, but doubting his patriotism never occurred to me.
4
My grandmother always said if you cant say something kind about a person keep your mouth shut. President Bush has passed on whether we liked his policies, felt he could do more will be debated in the history books for years to come.
Sound's pretty silly for people to get worked up over someone else's Twitter opinion. It displays a strange fanatical sense that we all need to think alike. Difference of opinions can not be shared for fear of losing twitter followers. What type of human beings have we become?
Twitter people aren't real people you aren't going to have a cup of coffee with them. Are we still in high school where we need to be liked by strangers? Are we not thinking adults? Can we not make informed decisions that differ.
I don't use social networks because I rather engage with real people have real discussions and enjoy there conversations.
Yes there are conversations that are disturbing but how do you intellectually grow if you don't interact in the real world.
I don't mean those silly rallies when one person does all the talking and is moving the country back to 1930 the crowd roars because they need to be entertained, that is not what I mean.
Let's try to separate fact from fiction and be better people. I believe that the individual who moved the needle in addressing the issue of AIDS was Elizabeth Taylor. She never gets any credit for all of the work she did to move the non existent political platform into reality.
The praise for HW Bush seems an over reaction because 45 is so despicable. We long for civility that obscures otherwise bad intentions. What occurred during his tenure at the CIA? Don’t forget Willie Horton and Gary Hart, both victims of Lee Atwater, under Bush for the 1988 Presidential campaign. Didn’t Bush also smear McCain during his son’s campaign? What did he accomplish after his term? Nothing compared to Jimmy Carter, a humble and true humanitarian.
Why do we spend so much money and incur so much pollution flying his remains from Houston to the capital and back. We need to get real on how public dollars are spent on these lavish displays while the 1% (all the Bushes) skips down the yellow brick road.
5
One thing that angered me very much is that the obituary of Carl Sagan was much more critical of the man than the obituary of Richard Nixon was of that man.
4
Looking forward to this take when Trump dies. Can't wait for all of the "We may have disagreed but...". Or is Trump just beyond being able to sufficiently provide grey and nuance? Will you bleat about a lack of maturity then? Maybe its the case that the heinous actions taken by Trump, like Bush, overshadow anything he may have done right. Maybe Bush doesn't deserve an even balance of hagiography and critique. Maybe Bush and his whole family were the prerequisite to where we are now and actively helped usher in Trump and have sat far too quietly as he's ripped the country apart.
1
President Bush represents the dignity, compassion and intelligence that has completely disappeared from the Republican Party today.
1
I have no doubt he was a nice man, dignified, a life of service to his country etc, however I also have little doubt that the world would now be a better place had he not been president if only because it greased the wheels for the disastrous son to take over, heeding the words of neocons and war criminals and eventually giving birth to Isis and etc. Not to carry this too far, his son was, to some degree, his own man, but his legacy is one of destruction and slaughter and an unstable world and we cannot easily separate the father who raised this son from the son himself. This aside from his own faults which were many. I am sorry to see any human being die but just wish this one had never been elected.
5
Seems like many issues or opinions today are cast in black and white or binary - 1 or 0. Nuance seems to have disappeared. China is bad so should be punished. Treaties are being cheated on so cancel them. The world is a little more complicated which is where true diplomacy and negotiations come in. The Great Negotiator is used to dealing with folks who have lesser power than he does so he just abuses them. That doesn't work with Allies and certainly not with China and Russia.
I recognize Twitter's significance as a microphone for all, but I still can't wait for the day when social media commentary no longer drives news stories and opinion pieces.
1
It's all Rocky & Bullwinkle vs Boris and Natasha. This is what the greatest generation fed us. As a generation, I don't know if they were the greatest but they went through the depression and WWII back to back and there were many unsung heroes. Reading the local obituaries around here the last several years you wouldn't believe how many of the 90 somethings were Army and Navy pilots. As an example. So many of our dads were traumatized by that war and kept it confined to themselves and their nightmares. Hopefully they're all at peace now.
1
Put simply, we have forgotten that no one is perfect.. We also used to say do not speak ill of the dead - historians judge all of our presidents with the benefit of hindsight. Let them do their job. Right now, let the family mourn in peace.
140
@CDN Nobody's perfect. Then, how about releasing most prisoners from their cells and wish them well. Not perfect, indeed.
4
@CDN
No, reality bites. None more than in someone's legacy, when they are dead. That's why it is so important to live an honest, decent life, especially if one is so entitled and arrogant as to believe the societal nonsense that being born rich and white and male automatically empowers them to hold all the cards and make all the rules - that are always for others to follow. Guys like Bush, who never worked for a living and always lived off the taxpayer trough, think the masses of hardworking little people owe them and ought genuflect to their lofty wealth and power - that they got from daddy and daddy's money.
Want to see the real deal? It's Jimmy Carter.
22
@CDN Thank you. Well said.
4
To judge someone's life through the lens of one or two issues seems to not be fair or just. While Bush may have faced 100 decisons or even 1,000; it seems like 'moralistic monday morning quarterbacking' to say he got this issue wrong bacuase it is important to me. To 'cherry-pick' someone's life through the bias we have seems a fool's errand indeed.
The arc of a person's life that spans over nine decades shows this man did a great deal of good and may have missed the mark on some things. Overall, our nation is blessed to have had George Bush as a President. A little kindness and humility would help us now as well.
5
The difference at issue is between people and actions. There is nothing wrong in saying that Bush Sr. was a good man, or a good president. He was a human being; he was complex and flawed, but he had good intentions more often than not. I'm an "ultraprogressive," and I feel good about that characterization.
Individual actions, like his complicity in the Willie Horton ad, his failure on AIDS, and his pro-life stance--these we can say are morally or ethically wrong. But that's not nuance. It's not cognitive dissonance or "holding two thoughts in our heads at the same time." It's an ethical approach to talking about specific wrongs without writing off an entire human life. We are all responsible for the actions we take--but we should resist making any single action the defining characteristic of a human being.
Finally a voice of reason. We can only hope that it won’t be drowned out by the cacophony of partisan rancor.
6
I'm a Dem who blames Reagan for deregulating broadcasting (thank you for Fox News) and the banking industry (thank you for the financial crisis) and for AIDS becoming an epidemic. I blame Bush for continuing the AIDS crisis and also for not withdrawing the nomination of Thomas. Ick. However, what I do remember about Bush's presidency was that it was the last time I felt safe in my own country. That might be relevant to this conversation.
@Susan Murphy
So you're blaming AIDS on Reagan and Bush, interesting....and the banking laws. You can thank Clinton for Glass-Steagall.
No, Frank is right. America has lost her innocence and her nuance. Trump is the symptom, not the cause.
There was a time when we held ethics and morals in high regard at least in lip service. Now it is take the money and run, my way or the highway, do what it takes, by any means necessary. For what? To win, and don't compromise, that is a sign of weakness.
There was a time when we respected, admired, and strived for a quality education But it is all about the money now--major in crass business because there is no money to be had in the humanities and the arts. Maximize profits and minimize costs with cheap labor. Gage the well-being of the U.S. economy on the stock market reports, not on the Gini Index (measure of income equality/inequality).
We have really dumbed ourselves down over a number of decades. Who knows who their senators are, what the Constitution says, the checks and balances in the 3 branches of government?
What do 98% of scientists who study climate change know about climate change, when there is money to still be made in the fossil fuel industry?
I believe one reason Obama was so detested by those anti-Obama right wingers is that Obama is/was a (1) nuanced (2) black man, which was 2 strikes against him.
Nuance, wit, kindness are all out of fashion these days in GOP land. Trump is their role model now.
1
@PB FYI 97% of scientists said that humans affect the climate, that's by no means a 97% consensus on catastrophic climate change.
Frank, are you trying to be logical again? Like Bryan Behar, it's bound to cause you trouble.
I didn't always agree with GHWB but there was no denying his innate goodness, his ability to relate to people, no matter what race, class or character they were. Those are invaluable human charactistics, which are sorely lacking right now.
Keep on keeping on Frank. You're right about our narrow perspectives.
3
You left out that he used his influence to steal the 2000 Presidential Election and all the pain that caused. Hundreds of thousands dead and maimed in Iraq, the 2008 Depression, New Orleans Tragedies, taking the country from a balanced budget for the first time in roughly a century and Senate Hearings over concern the national debt would be paid off to - oh well, big deficits don't matter.
GHW Bush was basically a good man and he looks very good compared the criminal administration we have now - but he was certainly no saint.
2
George Bush never publicly disavowed the Willie Horton ads. In fact, according to Kitty Kelly, his wife Barbara maintained that "George did not have anything to apologize about" and that the Bushes held it against Lee Atwater that the latter did apologize at his own deathbed. That is not the act of a decent person.
I'm sorry. The fact of a person's death is no reason to ignore the ignonimities in his life. True, like is not black and white and there should be room for the gray. I think people's objections are about the tendency of many to gloss over the wrongs in a life when time comes to reflect on the dead person's life.
6
Substantial survey research shows that liberals are less tolerant than conservatives.
Here's just one example:
"Democrats were consistently more likely to indicate conflicting politics negatively affect potential relationships. While 82 percent of respondents who identified Democrats say they would be less likely to date someone with opposing political beliefs, only 47 percent of Independents and 42 percent of Republicans said the same. Similarly, 55 percent of Democratic respondents said opposite political views would make them less likely to befriend another student, compared to 21 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans."
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2018/05/a-survey-of-dartmouths-political-and-free-speech-climate
2
Though I agree with most of this, the onus is not on the critics of his Bush's policies and inactions, especially regarding H.I.V./AIDS to regurgitate the praise, honor and love for him. Priase, honor and love issplashed all over the front pages of every single news media outlet.
It is not the responsibility of AIDS activists to frame their critiques in a "comfortable" way for those that would rather ignore those critiques.
1
Frank, you complete me, politically. I thought your Obit writing on GHW Bush was grace and elegance personified. I completely agree about shades of gray. It’s nuance we need to recognize, and accept. I’m certainly not perfect, except to my Dogs. And they have exquisite taste. Why should anyone expect perfection from ANY Politician, of all people ??? Thank you.
5
Christmas day in 1992, departing President Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and 5 others connected to Iran-Contra, thereby protecting himself from any possible indictment. No one on the Right complained about that travesty of justice. Republicans in the Senate did NOTHING.
Eight years later, Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. We never heard the end of it until 9/11. Moreover, a decade later, whenever President Obama pardoned Black men and women, who were proven innocent by subsequent events, Republicans in Congress condemned him. Republican ideology is that pardons by Democratic Presidents, even pardons because of a miscarriage of justice, are always unacceptable.
BUT it's okay for Republicans. Trump will pardon everyone who has lied to protect him. Republicans in the Senate will do the same thing to Trump that they did to President Bush when he pardoned Caspar Weinberger: NOTHING.
4
If there is this mysterious wonderful side to Bush that is coming out after his death why did he lose to Clinton in the election? Yeah he was a decent man compared to Trump but who isn't? Bush was Big Oil and pals with the Saudis. That's sleazy company at best in my book. I don't remember Bush for much of anything else. McCain was very conservative but he also cast a deciding vote to keep Obamacare alive. That's a big deal. And he did survive years of torture as a prisoner of war. That's a big deal. No comparison between the two.
1
@sammy zoso
"If there is this mysterious wonderful side to Bush that is coming out after his death why did he lose to Clinton in the election?"
Answer: Ross Perot.
Sorry Frank but we're experiencing a fairly recent phenomenon, epitomized by broadcast and social media: "Feel-good Celebrity Grieving." If the deceased was anything beyond an entertainer, there is a concerted effort to obscure or ignore the balance of that person's record and celebrate one's fame, complete with airbrushed pictures, sad piano music and maybe a special supermarket issue of Time or Life. Hence, for just one example, no mention of the Lee Atwater politics that put Bush in the White House and is direct precursor to the Trump 2016 campaign. No, George H.W. Bush wasn't a monster like Trump. But to pretend his legacy was some kind of pure antidote to now distorts the truth as much as Trump does.
1
As luck is a reflection upon a fortuity, the former President was very,very lucky. He survived WWII. From that point, perhaps his heritage played a prominent role in his business success, but it came with hard work on his part, presumably. Presidents have advisers for the purpose of helping them make decisions on matters which affect the people. If the result is adverse, then he is the person who gets the blame, usually not the advisers. However, taking the case of Iraq's incursion into Kuwait, which had its raison d'etre in a boundary dispute near the Persian Gulf. The former President would not have needed advisers to tell him to come to the aid of the Kuwaitis, for an attempted takeover would not be a lawful way to settle such a dispute. If Hussein clearly perceived this and acted in order to start a conflict for the purpose of being allowed to attack Israel, and to burn the Kuwaiti oil fields in order to signal that his country, with its "boundless" supply of oil, would not become a puppet of the U.S., then we perceive the authoritarian mien of a dictator. The former President acted accordingly. The question of Israel's legitimacy represents an equally authoritarian mien. How many people perceive that? Public opinion, since it is not party to the information possessed by the intelligence community is very often not only ill informed but also wrong.
Given the amount of service GHWB rendered, he should be remembered as great.
Frank, if we do seem to be getting worse at nuance, it’s because people like Bush started us down that path. It was Bush who hid behind a demeanor of grace and dignity, but at the same time hired people like Lee Atwater to do his dirty work. From yesterday’s Washington Post:
“Even then, Atwater and Ailes were known as ruthless, amoral operators, but when they presented their campaign strategy to Bush, this man of such supposed high character embraced it with vigor. They all knew exactly what they were doing: exploiting, promoting, and encouraging racism as a way to win political office, with the most vulgar and despicable presidential campaign of our lifetimes, at least until Donald Trump came along.”
It was HW who reigned during the birth of conservative extremism and the plot to take over the US court system – a legacy we continue to take a hit from each and every day. And you suggest we turn the other cheek?
I’m more than a little fed up with the idea that we have to suddenly play nice when a person dies – all the while the damage that person did lives on and continues to reverberate throughout society.
“It’s a sign of maturity.” Really? Here’s maturity: being honest rather than participating in a national feel-good pageant of deep denial. Maturity is the ability to see reality and be honest about it so you don’t get fooled again by those who manipulate it.
Here’s a nuanced point of light: Bush was a great war hero - but that’s not what he’ll be remembered for.
1
The response is typical of the "black or white" thinking that goes on now - that people can't have good qualities and accomplishments along with some not so good, or in other words, imperfect human beings. It points up the toxic divisiveness in our country right now. It is very unhealthy for all of us.
We will look back twenty years from now and see social media - the ability to broadcast any thought unfiltered the second you have it - as a cancer. During Bush's time in office, no one had to worry about losing "followers" or being "retweeted" if he or she expressed compassion at someone's passing. To me, this is just common decency and compassion.
I'll just say this.
The only time I seem to see columns demanding that politicians' histories be forgotten or at least censored is following the passing of conservatives. Reagan's 'sunny optimism' is now followed by Bush's kind, gentle approach to governing, while Willie Horton and Anita Hill are shoved down the memory hole I can recall no such right-wing moderation -- indeed, I remember plenty of the opposite, most of it quite vile -- when Sen. Ted Kennedy passed away. It is likely that Presidents Carter, Clinton, and (especially) Obama can expect the same hypocrisy.
Can we have, at long last, a single standard? Please?
8
Nuance. What a word and it takes having read and digested information before getting on social media to express “how you feel.”
It also requires people to balance history, to understand history, and to want to see the grey.
It seems to me understanding the grey takes work, reflection. Americans have lost this skill, or just want to emote. It’s easier.
And now you know frank why we need a thrid political party so there can be an option for sanity, moderation, tolerance, science, pragmatism for the majority of Americans. Where do I sign up ?
Whitc: surely you mean a fifth party? As I recall the Green Party was on my NY ballot as was the Libertarian party (and indeed there may have been others too!) A third party equal to D and R, but the majority of people keep pressing one of the two buttons. Now if you
Have a billion or two to find the new party, great, because that’s just a start. And there are many for those virtues you crave...in the Democratic Party. Sadly the Republican ship has long since left.
And while I agree about Bush’s campaigning, to label him as the originator of Trumpism is misplaced. Goldwater started the rightward slide, and following LBJ’s Civil Rights Act, Nixon’s Southern Strategy was the genesis
Of a campaign based on racism.
As stated elsewhere, Bush’s governance was center right not hard right. So a mixed review seems appropriate.
Save the unalloyed plaudits for saints, and the unvarnished brickbats for the Hitlers and Stalins. Bush belongs in neither category.
I think what's happening in America now is that Republicans have moved so fascistly far to the right that those like HW Bush look, by contrast, like sensible men. We forget that this man ran the CIA, brought crack into the streets of our inner cities, supported Reaganonics, and was a major player in the transformation of conservatives into debt-loving war merchants.
1
Well done.
Nobody is perfect. Even as a Republican I find fault with some of President Bush's decisions. Just like not everything President Obama did or said was wrong, even though on balance I thought he was lousy for the country.
There is plenty of time for historians to dissect the good and bad of George HW Bush. But in the immediate days after he died???? His family (and many others) loved him. Have we no decency left that people cannot be quiet for maybe a week and lavish praise on someone who worked hard (and did not really capitalize financially) for the country?
2
I rarely ever agree with you, but that doesn't mean I can't respect your opinions. And this piece was by far one of your best. Both the far left and far right are out of control, and we need more "nuance" in our understanding and conversation, especially about great men like Bush. Cable news doesn't provide it, and more often than not neither does the NYT or WAPO. But I hope you set an example with this column.
Excellent, Mr. Bruni. The ability to see shades of gray precludes demonization of a flawed, but essentially good man. Given the current political climate, let us reserve demonization for the truly evil. The current administration does not want for targets.
What did Shakespeare say? "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is often interred with their bones"
Bush was guilty of a lot. Clarence Thomas, Iran Contra, Nicaragua, a ridiculously close association with the Saudis, a willing belief in anything that would advance his career, a defender of Nixon as Republican National Chairman, being the man who plausibly caused the first Iraq War (his ambassador told Saddam Hussein we have no interest in Kuwait), father to his son second only to Trump as the worst President in US history, etc. etc.
We shouldn't mindlessly praise those not deserving of it.
For some reason, the American media gets all gauzy and weepy-eyed and loses all sense of critical thinking when a President dies.
Few of us knew Mr. Bush personally - our relationship to him was in his role as President. While his style was far preferable to what we have today, many of policies and campaign practices were abhorrent (and a few were laudable).
Maybe it's appropriate to wait until the body is buried before the critique starts, but I object to this automatic white-washing that too often takes place.
Bush was a patrician, old school Republican, whose style and substance have been extinct in his Party for a long time. His record in office is public knowledge, and there is plenty to object to - no need to pretend that when he was alive we were in the presence of a G-d.
He sacrificed some of his own principles to serve with Reagan, and too easily compromised others while President. Lately, he and his son did far too little to publicly condemn the rise of Trump. Had Bush and Bush, Jr stood up to Trump when it mattered, they both would have been American heroes. The fact that he did not tells us that his loyalty was, until his death, to this Party over Country.
3
How about a new third way, where obits and encomiums give an accurate accounting of the person? We don't need hagiography and we don't need hatchet jobs; thoughtful readers will object to both. Ignoring either side of that is whitewashing a person's legacy and essentially lying to the public who depend on journalists for ferreting out the truth. Imagine how different things would be today if every time someone mentioned Reagan on his deathbed they would have included how he lied to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal, ballooned the deficit, and spent the last two years in Alzheimer's-related dementia and created a constitutional crisis? Reagan would not be the father-figure to the conservative movement. Likewise, subsequent generations need to read the true legacies of people like John McCain and George HW Bush.
1
Over the weekend, at my dinner table, voices were raised among friends regarding issues centered on the politics of our times. So unhappy are we, in our current America, that even people who have long been neighbors and compadres are reaching the end of their tethers.
We all want our judgments to be simple decisions, and if we are thinking human beings, they can never be simple at all.
I speculate that George H.W. Bush, like many presidents before him, knew that the right decision has rarely been the easy one.
I remember when Bush was president, I was always relieved to hear him speak, not Reagan any more. I am a died-in-the-wool Democratic Socialist, but I could breathe comfortably when Bush was president. People at the pinnacles of power cannot just move a little bit or say a little bit, unlike the rest of us. Even by NOT moving much, their actions are like boulders tossed into a pond. It's just the nature of the beast. Thus with Bush, with Obama who tried so hard not to rock the boat. Unfortunately (tragically) Trump shoots giant boulders from giant cannons in bunches.
2
In my experience Republicans always go way overboard with their state funerals and Democrats are usually too polite to point out less than saintly behavior of the deceased while services are in progress. Your insertion of "due process" for Bart Kavanaugh in this article is misplaced in too many ways to list here.
Thanks for this article, Mr. Bruni. I am relieved that there are voices of reason in your country.
There is a tendency to say `do not speak ill of the dead' and therefore even people who genuinely have some issues with the dead person will keep their opinions to themselves.
I do not have a strong opinion about H.W. I was too young during the time. But his nomination of Thomas, it is definitely a black mark on him. Same with Willie Horton ad.
There was a time I felt that I could never forgive McCain for bringing Sara Palin in prime light. This is in spite of his comment that Obama is not an Arab. But when I heard him in the last two years of his life, I felt he regretted it. I did not hear anything of the sort from H.W about Willie Horton (Thomas, I suspect, he does not regret at all. But I would have liked to see some on Willie Hortan matter). He could have done the same for Trump. He had nothing to lose.
Here is my concern with whitewashing the history in this manner. What happens when Trump or McConnel dies. To me, these are truly evil people. I do not want them to be remembered fondly. I do feel their overall contribution to America is negative. If a `Behar' posted a positive comment about them, I would be truly upset. So, I do understand people who think of H.W in the same manner.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with finding the best attributes of ones life while acknowledging no one is perfect.
1
The best public service Bush 41 has provided for the American people is showing the contrast between a president who understands his role as commander and chief and a president who acts like a crime boss tweeting about pending cases involving him. Praising defendants for not "flipping" and trashing those that co-operate with the government in finding out the truth. Bush 41 would never act or do such repulsive things that Trump does on a daily basis. I'm sure Trump's presidential library will be in the basement of the Enquirer which is fitting for him.
In an age of so-called "full story" not understood in importance of the past (except in the past if not too inconvenient of the present),I humbly submit, is a massive mistake that we cannot afford to make these days.
Mr. Bush Sr. was one of important reasons that caused me to change course in my career from politics of the past to my direct passion for/in/through human rights - directly to human rights exclusively.
Mr. Bush represented to me so very many good qualities that simply would not be enough for the future in a leader and amongst ourselves. There was too much same old who did not understand the majority. Along with his son, also an essentially good man, shows us that today did not come just from yesterday, but from many yesterdays before that.
Mr. Bush should be praised for all the good he did, far more than others especially leaders at that time, but his faults and mistakes need also to be mentioned or we learn far less, too much less to make the kind of differences we need for today.
1
He pardoned the malefactors of Iran/Contra, almost certainly to obstruct justice and protect himself from testimony that would have implicated him. He invaded a sovereign nation -- Panama -- which was not threatening us, kidnapped its president (his former employee when he ran the CIA), killing untold numbers of civilians and doing billions of dollars in damage, ostensibly because Panama had become a drug transshipment and money-laundering center, and then promptly forgot about the place, allowing it once again to be what it had always been, demonstrating that his claimed reasons for the invasion were spurious. Lee Atwater, a despicable man, apologized for the Willie Horton ads, Bush never did. He denounced voodoo economics until he was made Reagan's running mate, and then lied his head off about the economy for the rest of his political career, apart from the one moment later when he raised taxes. He gave the green light, through April Glaspie, for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and then had his armed forces commit ghastly war crimes when he took us to war, to fix the problem he'd caused. He forced Gorbachev to make an immediate transition to capitalism, instead of the gradual process Gorbachev had planned, which resulted in Gorbachev's replacement by Yeltsin, the auctioning off of Russia's resources to the men who became the oligarchs, and the apparently permanent tenure of Putin. He was an awful president who did enormous damage. But he wrote thank you notes. Balance.
7
Pragmatic, loyal and kind. Of course. Also a former director of the CIA and a Vice President who disavowed any knowledge of the Iran Contra affair.
1
This is an excellent piece. I agree that nuance has been lost by those who see Bush as the pawn of the religious right that he was without taking into account some of his positive contributions. It is, however, understandable that those who want us to remember the essential evil of his LGBTQ policies would react the way that they have to the current eulogies. The eulogies that have followed his death are just as blind to his faults as the criticisms of those eulogies are to his good qualities.
The problem is the long reach of the idea that we should not speak ill of the dead, all the way back to its original Latin. Dying should not erase the wrongs that one did any more than it should accentuate them. It is understandable that those who have responded to the eulogies invoking Bush's alleged perfection with reminders of the discrimination that he perpetuated have done so.
Let us not forget the wrongs that Bush did in remembering his virtues. He was not a saint. He was not a devil either.
81
@Barbara8101 Nicely done. I would only add that the example regarding LGBTQ policy offers an apt illustration of why it's so difficult to render a verdict on the recently deceased. Bush's attitudes toward gay rights were indeed appalling by today's standards, but so were Clinton's and Obamas. When Obama dies, should we dismiss the good that he did and denounce his legacy by pointing out that he opposed same sex marriage until public opinion shifted in favor of it? It's much more fair, and more useful, to acknowledge that all human beings have both good and bad sides, and to stop pretending we're ever going to have a president who was right about everything.
8
@Barbara8101. "The eulogies that have followed his death are just as blind to his faults as the criticisms of those eulogies are to his good qualities."
This is a false equivalency. People died as a result of his "evil LGBTQ policies" as you put it. No one died from overlooking his good qualities.
1
Regard for George H.W. Bush depends on who you are. Part of his legacy is defining and departmentalizing Americans in order to achieve his ultimate ambition: the presidency. As an African American women in my 70s, I am recalling how his actions affected me and other African Americans. Other than the ADA, we were, for the most part, harmed by this president and dispensable in his ruthless determination to be president. He will be remembered by me for opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Willie Horton ads and Clarence Thomas, the antithesis of Thurgood Marshall.
289
@Southerlens All the Southern Dems of that era tried to block the Civil Rights Act, did you hold them to the same standard? It was, after all, the GOP that got the Civil Rights Act through Congress.
2
@Paul W The opposition you mention had more to do with the Democrats being Southern than it did with them being Democrats. The bill was passed in bi-partisan fashion and not as you suggest by the GOP.
24
@Southerlens
I found the following in a paper published by Princeton University written by Tali Mendelberg:
The Willie Horton message was obviously about race. Or was it? During nineteen of the twenty-two weeks of the campaign, no one in America seemed
to think so. Bush and his aides spoke only about criminal justice, and they never mentioned Horton’s race. Dukakis and his running mate, Lloyd Bentsen,
said nothing about the racial element of the message. No other Democrat even hinted at the possibility that the message was racial. Journalists, too, seemed
blind to the racial element of the story; not one of the hundreds of editorials, articles, or television news stories about Horton noted the racial aspect of the
Horton appeal. Horton’s race was repeatedly shown in menacing photos, but it was never spoken. Horton may as well have been French and his victims
Swedish for all the notice his race drew.
Not so after October 21. On that day Jesse Jackson, the eminent civil rights activist who had been runner-up for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush campaign of using Horton with racial intent.
7
Much as I loathe simpleminded sentences that begin with, "Even though I didn't always agree with ..." (which remind me of sentences that begin with, "I'm not racist, but ..."), this call for recognition of complexity and ambivalence and nuance in public figures is very welcome. It gets to the heart of the very thing that separates rational (if flawed!) adults from black-or-white, all-or-nothing Trumpists. If I hadn't abandoned Twitter (and Facebook) because of Trump's incessant abuse of social media, I'd follow Bryan Behar in a second. Maybe I will, just to make the point.
2
Bruno argues the need for nuance, for maturely recognizing complexity. The supporting examples he provides are notably drawn from contemporary issues (as characterized in Kavanaugh, McConnell, Trump). True enough, sympathetic speculation that considers other angles is essential to the debates that will decide these current, continuing questions of right or wrong.
The hindsight of history, however, is already 20/20. Unless revisionist relativism functions as the point of departure, there is a factual record that can prove right or wrong. Now that history has run its course in this particular biographical case, Geo. H.W. Bush was wrong in fact in many instances, to grave effect (Operation Condor, Iran/Contra, the Iran/Iraq war, the House of Saud, his presidential campaign, Saddam Hussein, AIDS, Clarence Thomas, NAFTA and, finally, the ultimately invisible "thousand points of light" of his "kindler, gentler" Republican Party, especially as it evolved in the Shrub's "compassionate conservatism"). The damage he caused cannot be denied; it unfortunately overwhelms anything he positively accomplished as a leader (as a CIA director, as a vice-president under Reagan, or as a president).
As fellow human beings, we can and should extend our sympathies to his family for their loss. As U.S. citizens, there is no longer any need to revise our historical record when doing so.
10
@voelteer
Thank you for your excellent comment. It's really not a matter of complexity or shades of gray, as you so clearly point out.
i was offended by some of my relatives who went immediately to Facebook and posted hit pieces immediately after Bush died. Not that I didn’t agree with much of what was posted, but the timing seemed particularly cruel and insensitive. Seems to me we’re in the eulogy period right after someone dies. Relatives and friends (of which Bush had many) are still grappling with the news and are dealing with their shock and grief.
In this era of instantaneous gratification, where tweets and Facebook reach people in seconds, there are sometimes breaches of common decency. Let the man lie in state and be buried. Let those close to him be deeply sad. There’s plenty of time for critique and pointing out big mistakes.
Bush’s adult life was in service to his country. Even as a Liberal Democrat, I can respect, appreciate, and admire that.
24
Commentaries like this - extolling the alleged virtuous middle ground - fail to fully grapple with the abject human suffering left in the wake of the politics and policies of people like George Bush and his successors. Let's first assess, candidly and honestly, the long term consequences of the racism of the Willie Horton ad and the homophobia at the heart of the failure to lead on AIDS. Once that's truly been done, we can write the encomiums to the "leaders" who contributed to them.
123
@William Agreed. It's just hard to fit all of that into a Tweet. I thought Behar did a good job of dampening his praise with his lead-in qualification. At the same time, I don't see the act of unfollowing someone as the act of unshakable partisanship its being made out to be. Social media, despite its elevation by the president, is a trivial affair for many of us. There's a thousand Bryan Behar's out there. I think it's OK to try another if this one says something that offends you. I'd say a bigger problem is that commentators like Behar are so obsessed with the size of their online audience that the loss of even a small share of it informs everything they write.
8
@William If "extolling the 'alleged' virtuous middle ground" is somehow a bad thing, we're gone for a people who can responsibly govern themselves. It is in the middle that gov't actually gets stuff done. The problem you and other far leftists appear to have is that not everyone agrees with you. 30 years ago, in a different era, GHWB didn't pursue YOUR agenda. Of course he didn't--he was a moderate conservative and you're far to the left. But he actually did charter significant progress in the battle against AIDS. His signature domestic achievement, the ADA, outlawed discrimination against people w/the disease. Then, he signed the Ryan White Act which remains today the largest source of federal funding against AIDS. If you wish the bill had named after a gay man, I get it, but look at it this way--perhaps it was the death of a child that shook up enough of Washington to get tougher in the fight. Do you NOT want the $$$? In the late 80s/early 90s, most of America did not realize the gravity of the disease, esp. because it was so concentrated the in LGBT community.
You know what really was the pivotal moment in the fight? Magic Johnson. We all wish more had been done sooner, but the world never conforms exactly to everyone's wishes. But w/Magic's announcement, the country finally "got it" overnight.
GHWB isn't responsible for any gay man's death. In fact, his two pieces of legislation saved many of them. We all wish it had been more.
8
@William What politician has not, at some point, caused someone to suffer? For that matter, who among us has not, at some point, caused someone to suffer? There used to be such a thing as respect and humility, particularly when a dignitary dies. But I guess now if you're a white male, you deserve nothing but contempt, even in death? This country has honestly lost its way completely.
5
I once met a women who was so incensed by W. that no amount of accord was strong enough to satiate her rage. I agreed with every point she made and added a few she missed but that didn't assuage her rising anger that I wasn't angry enough. I eventually had to leave the bar because her level of hate was insurmountable. It consumed her sense of reason. She could not even be happy in finding a kindred spirit. I learned two things that day. I could never be that partisan and those that are are not enjoying themselves. Compared to Trump, Bush Sr. was a pussycat. Anyone who can't see that has lost all sense of proportion and in losing that, they have already lost their argument.
107
@Rick Gage Wow! You nailed it! It was during Dubya's era that I had the same light bulb moment. It wasn't one night at a bar, but spread over probably two years or so of listening to all sorts of illogical rants by my college classmates. I went into college thinking I was a conservative. I was full of anger towards Clinton (despite having a secret soft spot for him). I listened to right wing radio. But as these fellow students just unleashed the most cruel venom at W--including in the immediate post-9/11 days--I realized I had been just as stupid back in the 90s re: Clinton. I was a high school kid in the 90s! That adults can parrot the nonsense of a high school kid is scary.
And so I became a raging moderate.
10
@Rick Gage
I'd consider a third lesson: Never talk politics in a bar.
13
@Rick Gage They may not be "enjoying themselves." Some of us see that as a secondary priority to acknowledging reality and building a better future. We also don't consider "He wasn't nearly as bad as our awful current president" to be any kind of praise, but what do I know? You have all the answers.
5
Thank you, Frank. I disagreed with Bush 41 on many things, but I never thought him anything but a decent man who did what he thought was in the best interests of the country. Would that the current occupant of the White House were similarly inclined.
8
It's tiresome and dispiriting to read so many solemn tributes to the powerful upon their passing. The overwhelming majority of these remembrances are brimming with factitious sentiment: The writer recalls a trivial encounter and imbues it with deep significance to him or herself and assumes it furnishes a key insight into the character of the departed. The media opinionator presumes to speak for the anonymous multitudes: "We will all be the poorer because . . . ."). The mourning colleague attempts to burnish his professional reputation by association with the departed.
Like all of us, the renowned are due their personal tributes in death, but let the words come from those who knew them as real people and let such recollections be shared in this intimate group. If a president's acts raised important issues of concern to a wider society, let these be discussed frankly and courageously, but omit the sentimental treacle. The modern obituary is in danger of become an instrument of celebrity culture to maintain us all in a life of vicarious fantasy.
12
Gauzy tributes for the deceased are commonly seen as respectful and kind. ("Don't speak ill of the dead.")
This is fine in the private sector. But post-mortem commentary on the life of public figures needs to be more balanced, courageous, and bracing.
It is possible, and indeed should be considered mandatory, for reporters to view and assess the lives of world leaders as clearly, objectively, and completely as possible. The lives of these influential figures have an immeasurable bearing on social policy and history, and any credible writing about them should reflect this enormous impact, for good and ill.
224
@JR
He chose to be judged for his actions when he stepped into the public arena; all those who choose that life do. To claim it is unfair to evaluate his presidency now is pure hypocrisy. It whitewashes history. Do not confuse fair, polite judgement with rudeness. It diminishes the dialogue essential to democracy.
131
@JR
Couldn't agree more with you!
Mr. Bruni’s genteel appeal for nuances, moderation and shades of gray, etc., all that sounds “nice.” But perhaps too nice and too easy. What we need more of is less this niceness than crystalline and disciplined thinking and coherent ethics, something that might in fact trouble and trigger dissension and revolt on which all sound democracy is built. Read this piece along with another piece by him on Melania Trump titled “Melania Trump Could Be Our Greatest First Lady.” Mr. Bruni has a history of, it would appear, heaping unwarranted praises to those in power. This 'softness' in him toward certain figures causes malaise, to say the least.
16
@icwebber
The reason why he appears "soft" is because he wants people to view life in the complexity in which it is lived rather then as a reactionary force which leads nowhere. As a Gay man, he no doubt understands the very personal aspects of the AID crisis. But his focus is on critical thinking and subtlety as he exploring ways to make this country work. No everyone has to be a fire and brimstone activist and that in fact insisting on that is probably not desirable. The harsh retributive approach advocated by so many can quickly go nowhere. In subtle ways I think he is protesting how modern Progressive politics is becoming as reactionary as Tea Party politics and losing a positive complex vision. As a friend once noted to me "Chemistry is like politics:, for every reactionary there is an opposite and equal reactionary".
6
James Madison once said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Presidents need to make tough decisions and difficult tradeoffs in part because the citzens they lead are no angels. And neither are the people who want do the citizens they lead harm.
Madison went on to say that "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary"
Presidents are not angels either. They are all flawed. Some (much) more than others. They need to be watched and held accountable by the checks and balances designed into our system, a free press, and by a skeptical and engaged electorate.
President Bush was no angel. I didn't think he was a good President. But he was a good, if flawed, man.
Most importantly for a President, he submitted to government oversight, a free press, and an electorate that eventually held him accountable for his mistakes and sent him home.
The difference between a poor President who is a good person and believes in democracy and a poor President who is a bad person who doesn't, is the difference between day and night, light and darkness, disagreement and hatred.
It's the difference between President Bush and President Trump. It's why one earned praise for who he was and why the other deserves condemnation for who he is and always has been.
430
@LT Always remember, in his concession speech, he opened by saying "The people have spoken, and we respect the majesty of the democratic system."
33
@LT Perfect
11
@LT It's why, in death, Donald Trump will garner only opprobrium from those who oppose him. Nothing counterbalances the man's disdain for the values that make the United States of America worth fighting for.
13
“A person can deplore Trump’s recklessly inflammatory characterizations of illegal immigration and treatment of migrants while acknowledging that secure borders are a legitimate concern.” Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for articulating it. DJT remains beyond redemption border wall or not. We can acknowledge reasonable policy points without joining MAGA Nation.
5
I never voted for George H. W. Bush and I never cared for his politics or the people he surrounded himself with while in office. However, after leaving office he involved himself in many humanitarian efforts around the world and always seemed to me a decent man. I'm sure he had many regrets regarding some of the decisions he made while in office as well as certainty in others. I have always believed that if you want to make the world a better place then it is up to you to make yourself a better person. I feel he accomplished this in his later years. In the end he was after all just a man subject to impermanence as we all are and since I did not know him personally I can only reflect on what I have read and I conclude that his was a life well lived. My deepest sympathies for the Bush family.
140
@Brian Flaherty
‘I have always believed that if you want to make the world a better place then it is up to you to make yourself a better person.’
Are you sure? For a long time I have been a far-superior-to-average person but so far the world has failed to catch up with me. (I am 66 years old.)
1
@Lawrence in Buckinghamshire I hope your comment is in jest. Afterall, it is morning here and I don’t enjoy nausea with my cup of Earl Grey.
4
I disagreed with President Bush under most circumstances. His response to HIV was a complete failure. Clarence Thomas was and is an affront to the legacy of Thurgood Marshall. What is also true is the man had some form of moral compass coupled with a true belief in the nobility of government. I believe President Bush had a compassionate perspective towards the world. Viewed through the lens of today's presidential politics he takes on a saintly glow.
6
Thank you Mr. Bruni for this column. I agree that although President Bush’s legacy certainly spans some deep shades of gray, his love of and service to our country, as well as his noble intentions, were not in doubt.
You observed that the “first wave of takes on Bush”, including your own, “slanted excessively to the complimentary”. However, shouldn’t that be the norm on the days immediate to one’s passing? The most gracious and humane? There is a time for sincere reflection, but that time is not at this moment, when family and close friends, in particular, are still grieving. I hope that when I pass, kind (and perhaps humorous!) words will be spoken...at least before the smoke has cleared.
5
I never voted for 41 (or 43). I did, however, attend his inauguration with my husband and sons, thanks to my brother who was a (Republican) congressional legislative director.
I had a ticket for a seat up front (my husband and 8 year old son stood in the gallery) where I sat among movie stars and full-length-fur-wearing models with my 3 year old son buttoned inside my Montgomery Ward cloth coat.
Remembering President Bush's inaugural address, what sticks with me was his message of outreach to the disenfranchised in our country. His Thousand Points of Light program caught my fancy, and I thought (and still think) it has merit as an approach to bettering the lives of so many.
Despite my disagreement with his politics, and despite the Willie Horton ad, I still believe we had a decent man in charge who was endeavoring to serve his country in the best way he knew how. I could respect that, even if I was sometimes frustrated with the direction he took.
What we have lost is a leader who had OUR best interests, rather than his own, as a priority. What we don't have is a decent man who cares about all of us, even when we don't agree with him. That is not a Republican thing or a Democratic thing. That is a moral difference. That is the difference between a man who is essentially a good man, devoting his entire life to the service of others, and a truly selfish man who seeks nothing but adulation to feed his own ego.
27
My only objection to the tweet is the use of the word “sorrow” at the passing of a 94-year-old man. Sorrow and grief are more appropriate for the passing of the young, cheated of a full life. Death is the inescapable end to life. Why do we grieve rather than appreciate a long life and find joy in the good memories of our loved ones?
12
In other words, we're all human and flawed, to a degree. But a public person's death, and respect for the family & friends of the dead, deserves a certain distancing from their mistakes and frailties. Even the surprising words (obviously not written by him) from the present occupant of the WH should probably just go unremarked for now. Dignity for a long, public life in service is bound to remind us all that we can strive for perfection but rarely achieve it unless we are willing to risk offending someone who disagrees with us. At this time we should honor his service to his country and if Mr. Behar loses some Twitter followers maybe that's the price you pay for reaching consensus; I think GHWB would understand.
10
The memorial for George H W Bush our 41st President of the United States on his last return to the Capital to lie in state in the Rotunda was profoundly patriotic and incredibly touching.
I appreciate this very 'fine' man who gave his whole life time to this Country and so yesterday it didn't matter a wit that he was someone with whom I had usually strongly disagreed politically.
9
A phenomenal column. A perfect analysis of the difficulties of finding the middle ground - often, the reality - in this era of tribalism.
And, subtly, perhaps unintentionally, an analysis of how social media acceptance has become an indicator of our worth.
May both issues be fixed quickly.
11
@htg
"And, subtly, perhaps unintentionally, an analysis of how social media acceptance has become an indicator of our worth."
This line alone is worthy of an "NYT's Pick."
1
I always thought George HW Bush and more so, his son, embodied the Peter Principle, rising above their capabilities. Yes, he gave much to the country but he received much more. I think he embodied the lack of depth in the Republican party. He seemed to be a decent person, well liked, dedicated but more party oriented than country oriented.
As president he seemed more of a place holder than a leader. That's not always a bad thing and those lamenting today's horrors in our highest office look back fondly at his time. But he gave us Dick Cheney and Clarence Thomas and silently watched his son send us into two wars we are still fighting, seemingly without end.
Even as Republicans praise him they turn a blind eye to their party leader today.
19
@Kathy
Both Bush the father and Bush the son got their tippy top positions of power by being rich, white, Connecticut patrician, ivy league and with relatives/friends in high places.
Bush Sr. never did well in business or in an election till later in life. All of his early government positions, for decades, were patronage = affirmative action for rich, male, white Yalies - with the only special talent of being a Skull & Bones secret society member.
1
Kathy, good comment. I’d like to go a little further in noting that his campaign and drug war stunk of racism, his response to AIDS was maximally cruel, his Iraq escapade put him comfortably in the war criminal zone, he obstructed justice in the Iran Contra scandal and then pardoned that scandal’s major figures, and, as you said, gave us the sex-offending Clarence Thomas, the pin-headed hyena Dick Cheney, and his son, the happy idiot who has plunged us into never-ending war. How is that the record of a moderate? How is it that people get their backs up when that is pointed out? He was a mediocre president who did a lot wrong. It’s a fact. The press is committing its usual head-in-garboon nonsense in saying what a great man he was. His legacy is utterly negligible, except for the harm it caused. It is not “grey.”
1
Nuance and complexity are sorely missing in today's debate, I think there can be no argument there. However, I find real danger in attempting nuance and even handed debate when it comes to items like the Conservative stacking of the Supreme Court and the race-baiting demonizing of immigrants writ large. Nuance and complex arguments sadly require two invested groups acting towards a common goal or some form of understanding. That most certainly is not the case with so much of what this President and his Party are looking for. Granting them due consideration for their actions, with the very real consequences to the most disadvantaged and disenfranchised in this country and the world at large is a privilege they have most certainly not earned.
2
This column certainly needed to be written. Thank you, Frank Bruni.
When a person passes, in my view, it's not the time to seek out the warts. It's a time to focus on the good, because the family is watching. It's as much for them, as it is for the deceased.
Let historians take the measure of the man or woman once the dust settles and the time mourning is past.
That's the time to right-size the public figure who has died, and ideally, develop a more balanced view of a life's achievements.
I know personally, once I go, I'd like to be remembered for my good qualities, more so than my bad. My family might be appreciative, and if my enemies aren't satisfied, well, then so what? Frankly, I'd be grateful if I get any thoughts at all when I pass.
Of course, I'm not a public figure or even one of great deeds across decades. And since many of us live lives of quiet desperation, wouldn't it be nice to think that for a few days at least, our light is allowed to shine?
25
I could not object more strenuously to the repeated reliance on "we" in this column. I would argue that most Americans well understand that leaders, like they themselves, are imperfect, with their good points and bad points, and that politics leads to imperfect results. I'm not sure the media gets that or cares to report or opine from that "nuanced place." And I know that the people you hear from first, and the most, are the angriest, least temperate people. The death of George H.W. Bush, like the death of John McCain, does offer a moment to reflect upon the great value of good but imperfect leaders. And then there is Barack Obama, who insisted upon being reasonable, no matter what. It's only been two years since he left office, however long it feels like. If he could win the Presidency twice, clearly Americans still appreciate principled, intelligent moderation.
8
Many thanks for this.
Along with Gerald Ford, who had blemishes of his own, Bush I was my favorite Republican president. (Hard if not impossible for me to think of my absolute favorite, Lincoln, as a Republican in today's terms.) His time was probably a part of his appeal, as he governed during an era where bipartisanship and compromise were still in the political vocabulary.
This decent man reminds us that the state of politics today is not the only way to go. Speaking of him can connect younger folks to that time and that ideal. I sometimes despair of a whole generation that cannot remember a time when the federal government worked more or less as intended--when there were three distinct branches that each upheld their own duties and obligations and when politicians could be friends with folks they didn't agree with politically.
4
I'm sad to see a similar tendency among people I know - the veracity of an opinion depends on who is saying it, and "conservatives" are automatically dismissed. I have countered this tendency by reminding people that they are acting contrary to MLK's hope that people be judged not by who they are, but the content of their character, which means to me the value of their ideas. It is simply the Golden Rule - if we want people to receive our ideas fairly and openly, we need to do same. With so many independent voters, elections are decided by attracting them, and shunning people because of their mistakes during a long life of public service is a losing political strategy. RE: H.W. Bush - for me he's the only GOP federal leader, Congressional or President, worthy of leadership power since Eisenhower. He was somebody I could have voted for if his political party wasn't already down the rabbit hole with Voodoo Economics, which was his appropriate name for tax cuts that somehow increase Federal revenues. I'll always appreciate that about him, though he later had to "go along to get along".
5
George Bush was a hero in WWII. He selflessly served the country and though I never voted for him and know he made some poor decisions he has my respect.The gutsy way that he let the chips fall during the S&L crisis is a stark contrast to the way in which politicians have handled later financial crises.It may have cost him the reelection.
5
@marc heilweil
Bush did zilch until shot out of the sky, and even then his actions caused the death of 2 crewmates.
Something has changed, but that something is not that we're "getting worse at complexity" or "nuance". What's changed is that after more than 40 years of neoliberal capitalist austerity for working class people administered by both Republicans and Democrats and unchecked global warming a popular rebellion is afoot, bifurcating on the left and right. Gone are the days when bipartisan consensus on a neoliberal economic program between figures like G.H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, both eager to serve the interests of the 1%, and dissembling and foot-dragging on climate change faced dispirited, passive acceptance by ordinary folk. Gone are the days when we could accept figures like this in leadership positions, or their ideas as the golden road of future prosperity. Battle lines are sharpening now along purely partisan lines, but behind these lines lies a logic that will eventually yield a struggle that transcends electoral partisanship, shatters the existing electoral system and poses a direct challenge to capitalism itself. We are approaching an inflection point reminiscent of the period preceding the Civil War, the class struggles of the 1930's, or the Civil Rights/Black Power and anti-Vietnam War movements of the 1960's, when compromise must yield to all out social conflict in order to resolve a fundamental contradiction within our social order than can't be resolved by appeals to "decency", "complexity", or "nuance". Politics as usual is over.
1
I think this column misses a point: the coverage of Bush has reached the level of hagiography. (I'm just back from my health club, where I noted on the row of TVs that while all the networks are covering today’s varied news, Fox is offering non-stop Bush coverage). The point is that while there is much positive to say about Bush, his negatives, too, are significant and deserve mention. Part of the problem is that compared with Trump, Bush appears to be a saint. But next to Trump frankly, both Nixon and W. are looking good.
20
@Ron I have been shocked at the level of hagiography. From what I've been reading, very few articles have been anything but laudatory. I don't think that's healthy. I think it's right to give credit for good things, but not to suddenly assume someone has become a saint just because he died. Looks to me as though those who are lauding and praising insist that everybody else do exactly the same.
12
A sneakily important column from Bruni. I find it interesting that, just as our capacity for moral ambiguity in the real world seems to be diminishing, our appetite for it in entertainment seems to be increasing. A look at some of the premier TV shows of the past decade -- from Mad Men to Breaking Bad to House of Cards to Game of Thrones -- reveals deeply complicated and conflicted characters, villains we root for and heroes we question, moral landscapes with 50,000 shades of gray. And yet when we enter the realm of politics, a place of more complexity and nuance than most showrunners could ever dream of, we insist on things being either black or white, right or wrong, friend or enemy, woke or problematic.
Why is it that we can understand Walter White or Claire Underwood to be both good and bad, capable of both kindness and cruelty, driven by complex motivations, and prone to mistakes (i.e., human), yet cannot do the same for George Bush or Hillary Clinton?
4
As a passionate teenager, I vehemently argued against the election of (Iran-Contra) H. W. Bush at a lovely dinner party held by my two (unbeknownst to me) conservative uncles and their guests... they never held it against me. This weekend, as I read the obits for this same man; now with a gathering understanding of the complexity in leadership, in country, in normative patterns and historical pressures, I cede admiration for his love of country, civility, dignity, service and am sorrowful for the loss of these qualities in our leaders and ourselves.
11
It's true that H.W. was a nicer man than the current president, and achieved a number of notable things in his lifetime of service to this country. It's true he deserves honors bestowed upon him.
It is also true that after Ronald Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis in America for as long as he could, President Bush more or less continued Reagan's policy of neglect as tens of thousands of citizens died.
I stayed with my late husband in the basement hallway of New York University Medical Center, along with maybe 2 dozen other dying patients and their "caregivers", because there were no rooms available for any of them while they were sick. In America, in New York, ordinary middle class people were warehoused in hospital hallways as a direct result of our government's inaction, which included the inaction of George Herbert Walker Bush, nice man and President. We all stood next to gurneys, next to the dying people we loved, all of us relatives and friends and lovers and husbands and wives and moms, all citizens of the USA, because of our government's inaction.
So I was surprised to read Mr. Bruni's flattering obituary the other day, and then not surprised by the follow up article about people who remembered [and can't forgive] the racism of that presidential campaign, and I remembered the despair in that hallway and thought: he really wasn't so kind, or compassionate.
It is not a shade of gray I want to put on the walls I live with: that's what happened to that shade.
27
@Michael cThank you for sharing. So many other people have said better than me how disgusting it is to read these laudatory columns about Bush. Maybe the worst offender was Maureen Dowd but this is right up there. I will be glad when this over. Unfortunately Willie Horton and Clarence Thomas remain with us as well as GWB’s legacy. Thanks a lot George. We mere mortals just struggle along.
1
I have no problem accepting that somewhere somehow and mostly after his time in office, the 41st President GHW Bush did some good along with some bad. I vividly remember the 80s and early 90s and hence the bad is more my memory. But if he felt he needed to redeem himself and did some good, all the better.
What I cannot stand is this careless use of the increasingly hollow word Patriot used where it is not appropriate, which is in most cases.
GWH Bush relentlessly pursuit an agenda that was not to the benefit of ALL Americans, only to the benefit of SOME Americans. And that ALONE guarantees that he was not a patriot.
16
Thank you for writing this important piece.
We may not all have agreed with Bush Sr., but if there's one thing he had it was class and dignity. He was 'presidential' (which is more than we can obviously say for others...).
I happen to be a (moderate) liberal, but either way, I'd hope that more people on both sides will be able to better recognize, and admit, that far too many people have become overly-rigid in their POVs. It's also no secret that, with the proliferation of social media, and its being seen as a source of 'news' and communication and 'infuence', that everything has turned into 'us vs them'.
I tire of politicians being felled for any infraction that is of a sexual indiscretion nature. So long as a pol does their job, and does it well, I could care less what happens in their personal lives.
With social media, everything is now a potential slight. Corporations, news media, etc. must immediately severe ties with any employee, vendor, alliance partner, etc. who may be the current scourge on Twitter.
It's become insane.
2
Willie Horton
Iran/Contra
The Contras themselves - a legacy of innocents slaughtered and fomenting unrest in Central America which remains to this day
AIDS
Up for debate - the election debacle in Florida (while Jeb was Gov.) which awarded another son, GWB, the Presidency des[ite losing the popular vote. His CIA background would make that child's play.
Yes, he had good manners and patrician charm, as blood flowed as a result of his policies.
41
There are have been many columns here and elsewhere where I have commented about Mr. Bush. I tried to offer that nuanced comment that you speak of Mr. Bruni. I thought I did a good job, that other people found to be fair as well.
What I did and what many others have as well, is to separate the man from his policies. In many instances, it is not an easy thing to do. Even though (on the surface) Mr. Bush seemed to be the kind, thoughtful and dedicated public servant that we would hope any leader might be, where I draw the line is not necessarily how that leader wielded power, but how they got there.
Along the way, any person has a series of choices (or at least one crucial one) where their ''character'' is going to be tested. This has nothing to do with policies, or administration, but the naked pursuit of power.
On this critical point, I think Mr. Bush has failed. He divided us when he did not have to. He could have won office (anyone can) on the merits of positions, instead of attack, attack, and attack some more, by any means necessary.
Do I want me leaders to be perfect - Aye, I do, however I will settle for at least trying to be. That takes consistency, but it takes ALL sides not being absolute in that praise or condemnation.
I think GHWB was a decent man, but he left a legacy that hurt too many more, than he helped, while striving for and in office.
I think that is a fair assessment of his life lived.
10
Generally speaking, one should aim to respect contrary viewpoints. The problem comes when one extends this, illogically, to respecting the actions resulting from those viewpoints, irrespective of outcomes.
Few of us as individuals are in a position where the actions we take as a result of our opinions have far-reaching, irreversible consequences. Presidents (and other politicans) do possess this power and should be judged accordingly.
Those who are calling for "civility" or "compassion" or "respect" in the wake of H.W. Bush's death as a way of silencing the discussion of the irreperable harm inflicted by his policies clearly value the veneer of human decency rather than the actual practice.
7
This can be an expected outcome when, by choice, conditioning, or whatever else influences a person's constraining-unnuanced-weltanschauung, either/or- mindset, for getting to know, as well as to understand, an event. A person. Alive or dead. Add to that the opportunity, all too often experienced as a "demand" to respond NOW, and not to wait to respond after a thought-out "later;" becoming more aware of the goulashing of facts, alt-facts, fiction, and fantasies. "And in addition", which as a process challenges the binary-banality of undelineated "either this" OR "that" is an ongoing flaw in mixing up knowing (information) with understanding. Their different implications and consequences. And in addition, is our not acknowledging, in our daily voices and doings, that just as a map is not, and can not be, the territory which it graphically was created to represent; a menu is not the food for the meal which we choose, no word can ever BE what it was created to describe, explain, answer, question, a eulogy is inherently "flawed." Created and delivered by flawed, often "agendaed" fellow beings. About others. BE ings who were also flawed. Having heard that someone died, and being "acculturated" to know that one does not/should not say negative things about the departed, how many would say: "He died. Good!" And of those who would, how many have made a "difference" which makes a needed difference for menschlichkeit?
1
Why is the concept of disagreeable disagreement so foreign to some?
Yes, I agree that Bush’s policies have room for interpretation, but I would never question his love of country or his decency as a human being. There are bumps along the road (willie Horton comes to mind) where the image was tarnished but in total, I view this as the exception to the rule with Bush.
1
Ending thought Democracy Today-The problem with Bush and how he is being treated now is the incapacity of most Americans to look at and recognize themselves in the mirror and what they have done to the world, which is what Bush was doing to the world. And I think that is the main problem, we need to be able to look at ourselves and our imperial view of the world. A Country that believes it can do anything it wants - because that country ends up having somebody like Trump, which is the excrescence of President Bush. (paraphrased-Ariel Dorfman)
10
Thank you for this, Mr. Bruni! Entirely spot-on. I find it sad and troubling that our "civilization" (can we still call it that?) has devolved to a point where so many are now incapable of any nuanced thought.
10
I so appreciate this thoughtful and nuanced article. Unlike some comic book universe where good guys and bad guys are neatly in their boxes, we live in the real world where most of us are multi-dimensional and can have simultaneous, varying opinions on a particular issue. And this needs to be emphasized, just as Frank Bruni has so adroitly done here. So, thank you to Frank Bruni and other columnists and writers for calling out that we are smarter and more analytical than the one-sided thinking that is easy but empty and lazy.
7
I didn't agree with George H W Bush in many ways, but I respect him as a patriot, a gentleman, and a good family man. In the present era he might even be considered a moderate. Mostly he maintained the dignity of the Office of President.
15
@Carol Avrin A good family man? He cheated on his wife and raised three sons who have each committed egregious crimes against an uncounted number of victims - his little namesake being guilty of the deaths and ongoing suffering of millions of people, mostly women and children, who did NOTHING to this country. Nothing. Not one Bush son is a decent man. What's your definition of a *bad* family man?
Frank Bruni is exactly the sort of person who comes to mind when I hear the term "mushy liberal." To me, the term denotes someone who has principles but isn't very firm or outspoken about them, and is always willing to give those on the other side the benefit of the doubt even though they don't do that for the people on his side. It's this kind of behavior that makes so many Democrats feel their leaders and their spokespeople in the media "lack backbone."
I suppose how one evaluates each leader depends on which issues one considers important. Bush used racist appeals to win the presidency, a tactic that his GOP successors continued and escalated and continue to this day, a tactic that has done immense damage to our society. To me, that far outweighs the fact that he was willing to buck his own party to sign a tax increase. To Bruni, apparently, it does not. I guess that tells us something about what he considers important.
15
@Mrsfenwick
Dear Mrs Fewick,
So when you are eulogized do you want a recitation cataloging your shortcomings and misdeeds? Or would it be more charitable to acknowledge you were not perfect but spend the bulk of the memorial talking about your good deeds and qualities.
Mr. Bush will be rightly criticized in history books for his policies and decisions that went badly.
But as my parents taught me, sometimes if you have nothing pleasant to say, it's best to say nothing at all.
1
@Mrsfenwick
Moreover, in order to suck up to Reagan's cabal for the veep slot in 1980, Bush signed over his soul to the trailer park evangelicals and Catholics on women's reproductive health, birth control and abortion.
And then there's Iran-Contra that ought've seen the entire Reagan and Bush admins in prison.
1
There will be plenty of time later for a nuanced look at President Bush's legacy. But this week, just months after the passing of the first lady, his family deserves the respect of fond memories. Let us be Americans first, and partisans second.
34
Thank you for providing some adult perspective, Mr. Bruni. Nuance is much needed at a time like this.
Many who praise the late President Bush will remind you of his Distinguished Flying Cross, the ADA, his role in managing eastern Europe's transition at the end of the Cold War and so on. They will not mention Willie Horton, Clarence Thomas and his other transgressions, but those who do nothing but vilify him will balance things out.
FDR to this day remains one of our most revered presidents, but let's not forget that he unlawfully imprisoned loyal, patriotic Americans of Japanese descent, and he made compromises with the southern racists in his own party (like opposing anti-lynching legislation).
In spite of his mistakes, a nuanced analysis of history says that FDR was one of our greatest presidents. And, while he won't go down as one of our greatest presidents, a fair and nuanced view of Bush 41's life and public service will treat him kindly.
20
@Dave from Worcester "Willie Horton, Clarence Thomas and his other transgressions" What part of Willie Horton was untruthful? Clarence Thomas a "transgression? How about wise latina sotomayor or kagan? Who controls the Seante and theWhite House get to decide who sits on the SCOTUS. The left had more control until they nuked cloture Nice work libs --thank you.
1
The problem and the reason so many of us who actually lived through the Bush years was upset with the coverage is that there was virtually no nuance to it. I didn't expect or particularly want to see articles trashing Bush on the weekend of his death. However, I did expect to see at least a few caveats mixed in with the praise. If we felt free to talk about Watergate when Nixon died we should be able to talk about the AIDS crisis and Iran-Contra and Willie Horton now that Bush has died. Like it or not, the obituaries and the wall to wall tv coverage create a narrative that can shape the version of history that goes forward. Saturday was also World AIDS Day and as someone who was diagnosed with HIV the week before Bush was elected President and who remembers those years very well I feel like I am being erased from history along with the thousands who died under Bush's watch. The AIDS crisis was one of the biggest domestic crises of the time and Bush's response was mostly heartless. That needs to be mentioned and remembered.
148
@jim: Absolutely right. My heart breaks for those who suffered and died because politicians (mostly Republicans) couldn't bring themselves to utter the word "AIDS." I hope there have will be some World AIDS day demonstrations throughout the country during the weekend of Bush's funeral. And an apology from the Bush family wouldn't go amiss.
6
@jim
On another comment board I wrote about the same thing and was resoundingly called a Russian Troll, an exaggerator and some such. Your truth, your life, your battle, for many of us is not forgotten Decent people sometimes do indecent things, and GHWB is one of them, in the case of AIDS.
In contrast to Shakespeare, "...the evil men do lives on after them, the good is oft interred with their bones" For GHWB the "evil" of ignoring AIDS will live on, but we must respect the other real patriotic American things he did stand for and in today's paradigm, allows us a bit a shading of his faults, for compared with today it is understandable.
3
I will remember HW Bush as an honorable man who was able to navigate those heady and dangerous days surrounding the fall of the Soviet Empire and the predictable destabilization of the world order. No one was better prepared for that transition, either in political training or temprament and we should all be grateful that he was there from 88-92 . His domestic performance didn't match his foriegn policy but we should all reflect sadly that those "moderates" are a thing of the past despite the majoriy of Americans wanting such Presidents.
6
@Chris
Give this trope a rest. Your mortal enemy self destructs and only a total fool would clap. H.W. stood back and let it fall. There was nothing else to do. It was not an accomplishment.
President GHW Bush was a gentleman and a scholar in the patrician tradition, but he was also a big fan of war and military intervention. This "benevolent old charmer" thing that most everyone seems to be attributing to him in death is a seriously rose-tinted analysis. I'm not seeing a lot of conversation about what he did in Panama and IRaq and his adventures in Somalia as a bellicose Commander in Chief. Rather, he is painted as a cross between Mister Rogers and Lawrence of Arabia. It's a little romantic, to say the least.
37
My sentiments exactly. All the Bush bashing on being late on AIDS at times seems to overshadow other good decisions, for example sacrificing political expediency (and possibly reelection prospects) by raising taxes, deciding not to go after the Saddam regime, etc. He was not perfect but those that throw stones about a "mixed legacy" ought to look in the mirror first.
13
@Groovygeek When I look in the mirror I see someone who was actively involved in HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment from age 17 and my first day in college in NYC. I was appalled by the standards of care there vs in SF, and the lack of information for students matriculating at colleges in New York. If a kid can join the GMHC and become a peer educator to try to prevent people getting sick, surely a president could do something along those lines. Bush did almost nothing, because his team relies on prejudice to win. He chose that team. He chose to side with the racists and the bigots. He should have owned this, but he never did, because he liked the haters and their money and power more. He never could rise to the level of all the heroic volunteers of the day.
H.W. Bush doesn't deserve a pass just because he wasn't Donald Trump or because his views were a product of the times. We need to hold our leaders to a higher standard than this.
We can have compassion for the loved ones of the individual who passed, but we must also remember grievous wrongs. So many of the people calling for the former are unwilling to do the latter.
H.W. Bush was not a devil or a saint. He was, like all of us, a flawed individual. But his actions and their outcomes, for good or ill, were magnified by his position. So while we may praise his leadership or his kindness or his decency, it is his many errors that are more deeply felt and more painfully remembered.
35
I have mixed feeling about this. On the one hand, I admire his military service. As someone coming from prelivige, he didn't have to enlist in the service. He was so committed he was willing to go to Canada so he could enlist at 17 instead of waiting until 18. As a politician he served in a time when Compromise wasn't a dirty word. He wound up losing a 2nd term because he raised taxes after saying he wouldn't - because he knew it was the right thing to do (funding a war and trying to reduce the bloated deficit). Then on the other hand, was his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. I know everyone was happy that the hostages were returned but the ends do not justify the means. The Executive branch broke a law that was specifically enacted by Congress. They also broke an unwritten law that we do not negotiate with terrorists. He wound up pardoning a lot of the participants. It doesn't take away from the other things he did but he's no saint either.
19
@mercfan Thank you for remembering the Iran-Contra Affair. Why do so many Americans not remember it?
Funny sad how the villains and heroes in tv and the movies have progressed to reflect the complexity of actual humans, but we can't appreciate that complexity in real life.
30
I am a lifelong liberal democrat. I have friends who watch Fox News, are pro-life and who voted for Trump. They are still my friends.
On Facebook the past two years I have observed several of my friends bragging about how they unfriended someone who voted for Trump and who identifies as a Republican. I posted comments every time I saw their posts lamenting the fact they unfriended someone simply because of who they voted for.
My late mom was a liberal Democrat and my late father was a Nixon/Agnew Republican. My parents were happily married and their love, which was cut short after a 44 year marriage when my dad passed away from Leukemia was not determined by which lever was pulled when my mom and dad entered a voting booth.
I support gay marriage, am pro choice, support efforts to strongly address climate change, and I'm an adamant defender of civil rights for all minorities. I speak up when those rights are violated and when the criminal justice system too often becomes justice for only some.
I don't want to see an America where we live in communities based on who we vote for and which political party we support.
When the emergency responders climbed up flight after flight in the World Trade Center trying to save whatever lives they could they did not care about who was a Republican and who was a Democrat, who was a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, who was gay and who was straight, and who was White, Black, or Hispanic.
It's long past the time when we all do the same.
169
@Mark Jeffery Koch - sorry, but I vehemently disagree. I am not on any social media at all and believe all of them have failed the country. I also have a few Republican friends who despite our vast differences regarding ethics and morals I still try to make see the light. That said I find this entire political party of and by the wealthy and ignorant completely lacking in even a trace of humanity, dignity, honesty, and goodness/Godliness. Your analogy between helping victims and party affiliation is ridiculous.
15
@Mark Jeffery Koch
Nice is not necessarily part of politics with those who would destroy - current day Republicans.
Tell me again why I should respect someone who thinks queer citizens have no rights?
Who deny science and promote climate change?
There is right and there is wrong. Take a stand.
15
Your comment seems at first read reasonable, even noble. Many likes attest to that. We all love first responders.
At second read not so much.
Deciding political choices and the future is a different business from a response to a human catastrophe or disaster like 9/11 or bush fires.
To shrug off or even laugh with people who are harming others with their political choices is belittling or ignoring the power of these choices. To pretend that the difference in political choices we make are hardly any more troubling than the difference in personal taste is a great ignorance.
We should be wary of the civil war our society is drifting into. But we should also be clear eyed about whose politics and power grabs are the reason for where we are headed, who the bad faith actors are and always have been - and if we are not with them we must stand against them.
11
Look, Willie Horton was a brutal murderer. They let him out of prison for a weekend, and he murdered again. Isn't this an unwise policy? Are the Republicans wrong for saying this is something we should not be doing?
As for Clarence Thomas, I have read in the New York Times how he is the most influential judge on the Supreme Court, and how the other judges are coming around to his way of thinking.
9
@Jonathan - Please provide the links to the stories about Thomas' influence.
@Jonathan
Very few would deny that Willie Horton was a criminal who behaved heinously, but at the same time it's hard to deny that there was a consciously racial spin to pick him as an example that bordered on stereotypical.
And if that's not the case -- why didn't they choose a white murderer behind bars to make the same point?
There. You're welcome.
1
@Jonathan
Umm Jonathan you lost me a Clarence Thomas...Anita hill aside, and vouchsafing him to be a decent and humble man, he is unquestionably the least qualified judge on the current court and height of tokenism. The most influential member fo the court ? You obviously dont know anyone who has clerked on SCOTUS. My point is not to vilify Judge Thomas or his service, but he is a poor expalme of the caliber of poeple we need leading the court and the nation.
1
Elections have consequences. As does gerrymandering. As does carefully orchestrated propaganda. As does voter suppression. As does a Supreme Court decision about counting votes in Florida. But for some reason, we are expected to put certain things behind us and not dwell in the past.
Bush's Presidency was a brief respite in the increasingly rightward turn of the Republican party in the wake of the Reagan revolution. He was a vestige of a different era, when leaders believed they should lead by example. A Republican leader who had actually served in combat, who lived through the Roosevelt era when the focus was on the ordinary men and women who sacrificed during the war, and not Wall Street elite that had helped bring about the economic crash. He was out a out of touch with the direction his party was headed but also not terribly troubled about it either - at least until the advent of Trump. His sons were Texas Republicans, who took their political inspiration from more conservative leaders of the party.
He was a good father, husband and decent man, but came up short as a leader of his party.
26
@DebbieR I don't know if I agree that Bush 41 was a "good husband." The "family values" Republican party concealed his "other wife," Jennifer Fitzgerald, for years, then ruthlessly attacked the Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton, for an affair he had with Gennifer Flowers. Bush's wife Barbara suffered from depression because of her husband's infidelity, but that's okay, let's call him a fine, upstanding man.
1
@DebbieR His presidency was no respite for misogyny, homophobia or racism. He and Barbara were parents who raised three sons who display no personal ethics. What sort of parents manage zero for three? And they couldn't manage it with all their money and connections...which means the faults were within themselves.
I grew up in ultra conservative low tax, small government Droit de Seigneur Quebec. Our society predated the French Revolution and the estate system still resonates after the quiet revolution. 50 years after our detente with modern France we still debate who we are and who we will become despite our economic success and our healthy and thriving liberal democracy.
I have known many George Bushes he is the kind of man that thrives in conservative society. He is a kind decent and brave man who understands who and what he is. I could not write anything about his leadership because as bad as his judgement was as vile as history will judge Cheney, Reagan and the GOP, Bush was loyal to his upbringing and the values instilled by his tremendous privilege. We have heard much this week that George HW Bush was the last of his generation but the truth is we have more people like him now more than ever but today's world makes it impossible for the most ordinary of "extraordinary" human beings to rise to the top. George HW Bush was a mensch as is Jimmy Carter but as much as Jimmy Carter is brilliant and understands how the world turns Bush is an ordinary human being in extraordinary times where menschkeit and power are strange bedfellows.
5
We aren't allowed to think about things quietly anymore, and we rarely talk about politics to friends on the other side of the aisle. Once we put something down as a tweet or a Facebook post, it's out there for the thousands in black and white--to be condemned or praised. The stress of our 24/7 instant communication culture is rough.
President Bush was a complicated man. So much has been said in these last few days about his fine attributes and his failures; I was appalled by his choice of Clarence Thomas and heartened by his record of service in WWII, his ability to work across the aisle (the Clean Air Act and the ADA), his willingness to admit his failures, and to treat others with respect. If we dig deep into any presidency, we'll find much to disagree with. Otherwise we maintain this fairy tale idea of the perfect politician. I didn't vote for Mr. Bush and probably wouldn't if he were running right now. Does that mean I can't respect him? Where is it said that we have to agree on everything? In a presidency or a long friendship or a long marriage there will always be pros and cons.
43
@Mountain Rose
Indeed, the social media cancer, as I see it, has made a mockery of truth. From personal, uninformed opinions to blatant conspiracy theories, this technology is sodden by "be careful what you wish for."
As the minds of Americans look more like composting toilets, I am reminded of Carrie Fisher's semi-autobiographical book and movie, "Postcards from the Edge" in which her alter ego is criticized by her mother for demanding instant gratification." Her character responds crisply, "Mother, I have no time for instant gratification!"
This is our country: impatient, arrogant, self-absorbed. At 74, I am glad I won't have to put up with it much longer.
1
I have remembered and mourned the passing of George H. W. Bush, even as I have not forgotten Lee Atwater/Willie Horton. In the end, we're all a mixed bag. I take note that Mr. Bruni even defends Trump for following through on his campaign promise to nominate conservative Supreme Court Justices. But with all this goodwill, I can't come up with a single redeeming quality for Mitch McConnell. Should he keel over today, I'd be hard pressed to summon a tear.
94
@David Goldin Rest assured that the corporate media will find many endearing qualities in Mitch.
5
@David Goldin
The first sentient AI robot will have more soul than Mitch McConnell.
1
Bruni makes an excellent point in that "Accentuating the positive, especially in the hours after his death, didn’t eliminate the negative." This is worth remembering since otherwise we are always bound to be in an all-or-nothing debate.
But my criticism of the eulogies written on Bush 41 tended to be far too complimentary rather than balanced. In the desire to be civil, especially soon after one dies, one tend to be soft in their tone; but there is no need to varnish the realities.
As bruni himself admits, his own column "tilted excessively toward the complimentary." There is no need to be deferential to that degree.
16
I voted for George H.W. Bush for President twice. Of course he wasn't perfect, but to me he represented intelligent, thoughtful, dignified leadership -- precisely the opposite of the uninformed, vulgar train wreck we suffer at present. And let's not kid ourselves that GHWB was an outlier in failing to support LGBT rights at the time. It was his successor, Bill Clinton, who cynically signed the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in order to bolster his support among religious conservatives.
26
@Pedro You take the opportunity to comment on Bush and end slamming Clinton. You are a fine example of what Mr. Bruni described in his article.
The descent of discourse into a zero sum game, where each assessment can only be made in the starkest black and white terms, is a greater threat than the individuals who pursue and agenda I disagree with. The latter can cause damage, even tragedy. The former ultimately assures it, In our personal lives, we don't yet act this way. I think Joe in my office is a pretty good guy, except he shows up late for meetings and talks over people sometimes. In our political lives, there seems to be less and less room for everything that follows "except that." It's all or nothing when it comes to politics, pure or sullied, and we are much the worse for it. If many of us hate the polarizing character of our president, we would do well to remember that the antidote is not to engage the world as he does, albeit with different policy hopes. It is a return to reason and reasonableness.
12
A good bit of the problem is social media and the ease of responding via internet. If one had to sit down and write a letter by hand or type it and then mail it, it would give some time for reflection and a change of mind about the vehemence of the feelings expressed and some time for nuance to enter. Instead old grievances spring out and then there is a rush to print on the social media. This is not good.
16
It's very easy to remember those who have passed as saints whose good deeds and efforts outshine any blunders they have made along the way, especially when they were once leaders holding high office, if not high regard.
While one may be tempted to join in the present hagiography of George H.W. Bush, by concentrating on his thousand points of light and desire to transform the country into a kinder, gentler nation -- for many Americans, both Black and white, there remains one thing most commonly associated with it him, and that is the image of Willie Horton.
Yet the most tragic aspect of this is that this strategy still completely dovetails with the current a Republican position largely built around fomenting racial animus, just like it did during Mr. Bush's 1988 campaign.
Apparently some of the lights have gone out.
And some things don't change.
29
Politics is an unlikely path to sainthood. Individuals often do unfortunate things to come into power and then when they find themselves wielding power.
But the good one does in their life and their career must count, too. George H.W. Bush was undoubtedly committed to his family, his country and the international community. He was a man of integrity and he leaves a proud legacy.
Surely he deserves to be recognized and remembered for what was best about him.
20
@NM "Undoubtedly committed to his family?" Perhaps you don't know that he had an "other wife," Jennifer Fitzgerald, a mistress who lived and traveled with him during his Washington career. It was successfully hidden by the Republican party. Also, he "undoubtedly" knew about the Iran-Contra Scandal and dealings, but managed to keep mum about it, eventually pardoning the very man who would have to testify against him in court.
3
Brett Kavanaugh was not piled-on. The appropriate due process would have involved a full FBI background check into the allegations without timelines or provisos. Republicans couldn't allow that to happen because they didn't have time to ellivate an alternative nominee before the midterms. At the time, the GOP was still deathly afraid of losing the Senate as well as the House.
George H.W. requires nuance but a two-minded existence cannot view Kavanuagh as a victim in either world. He knowingly lied before Congress and Republicans rewarded him for his efforts. There's no grey area about good and bad in this scenario.
311
@Andy
If there's blame to give on Blasey give it to Feinstein. There was urgency to confirm Kavanaugh before the start of the court session in Oct. Democrats would have delayed the confirmation until 2020 if their wishes were to be obeyed.
I don't know if Blasey lied intentionally, but her version of the truth still looks shaky.
2
Any individual who devotes a lifetime of service to their country or others as opposed to amassing a personal fortune at the expense of people they step over to do so, is worthy of appreciation and gratitude.
39
H.W. Bush was exceptionally privileged and wealthy. He stepped over plenty of people to become president and many more once he got there.
Nothing about a lifetime of service inures one against facing criticism for their actions. In fact, if anything it heightens that need; we should expect more of our leaders.
74
@Joseph E I'm not sure what you mean by "he stepped over plenty of people". His first race for US Senate in Texas ended in a loss. He became VP only after losing to Reagan in the primaries. He launched his later Presidential bid off that. He didn't win a 2nd term because he reneged on a campaign promise not to raise taxes.
12
In Bush’s campaign for the presidency, Lee Atwater did a lot more than run that vile Willie Horton ad. He purposely set up Gary Hart with that MONKEY BUSINESS episode, ending Hart’s political career. Bush and Atwater attacked Hart in the hopes that they would be able to run against a weaker opponent, Dukakis. It worked.
It was ugly, horrible campaign politics at its worst.
1
We can, at times of death, choose not publicly speak ill of the dead. That is compassionate to the deceased family and friends, and allows them to grieve.
But, if we do that, we can not and should not pretend that an obituary in the NYTimes or elsewhere be an overall accounting of a life lived, an early draft of history.
We should not pretend to see gray when we are wearing our rose colored glasses. Nor should we take the judgement of anyone wearing them out of love and grief as worth discussing in a critical way.
I didn’t vote for either Bush, but the father is dead, and I will give the son my compassion for his loss.
Critique and History should wait for another day. Further, trying to use any potential legacy as a call for the future should also wait. We can honor the dead, without demanding adherence to beliefs and policies that we might have very real reservations on supporting. Death should not require anyone to call a wrong a right or a right a wrong.
Any call for moderation of beliefs held, like this editorial does, doesn’t honor the dead, it like any partisan is using it for personal political gain.
9
Thanks for a peek at the virtue of balance. The tribal mentality that pervades so much of our discourse is depressing and counter-productive. No one is all good or all bad, something we should keep in mind when gazing across the ideological chasms we've created for ourselves.
16
Frank: It's possible to respect a man and praise his positive actions and attributes while acknowledging the negative. The problem is that this isn't what Behar did.
Instead, he gave a whitewashed portrait of a president who was a "good, decent man who lived a life of dignity" when it's clear that characterization is disputed. He was not a good, decent man to the many people harmed by his actions and inaction as president.
We should not mythologize the dead any more than the living.
86
@Joseph E
The question I ask you, Joseph, is did President Bush harm people intentionally? Do you question his devotion to the country? You would probably praise Obama. I despise him, and suffered harm personally for his presidency. But in the weeks after his death, I would shut my mouth and focus on the positives- he did what he thought was right and was elected to do. I just don't like what he did, but he is not a devil. Nor is GHWB.
Show some class.
@Ny Surgeon - "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"
Who knows what was in Bush's "heart" as he added to our country's racial division via opposition to the CRA, expansion of (R)eagan's War on Some Drugs and Willie Horton, or when he ignored the HIV/Aids crisis… Fact is he took those (non)actions.
1
His time with us is over. He played his part. While I didn't vote for him and I deeply wish he'd done things differently, I can still acknowledge his passing without malice.
80
@Diana
Those who criticize are not acting with malice but trying to counter the excessive praise. And being better in all ways then Trump is not a high bar.
12
I agree that these kinds of issues require nuanced thinking. The problem is the framework through which that point is argued. Twitter isn't designed for nuance nor depth. It's where people go to cultivate their personal brand. It's where cultural value gets measured in followers, likes and retweets.
Something like a quarter of Americans use Twitter, yet the quarrels and 'debates' arising from the platform are continuously amplified and analyzed as being representative or a mirror of American culture. It's not. It's an echo chamber for sound bytes.
A more important and problematic development is the twitterization of discourse across nearly all media. That dumbing down or simplification of complex things is what has led us to our current entrenched partisan divide. It's what turned politics into entertainment. And it's what makes people think popularity is equal to knowledge and experience.
23
It would sure be nice to find our way back to that "better place", for the moment, however, we are stuck with trump: all vice and no virtue.
8
To be in the arena, particularly as President, it is not humanly possible for one person to have a record with no mistakes. We should evaluate anyone, particularly a President, based on the preponderance of their performance. On that basis George H. W. Bush is certainly deserving of the accolades we hear as he is eulogized. I am a Democrat who never voted for him but certainly appreciate the quality of his character.
25
DCN,
Yes, the Iran/Contra affair that killed thousands, and caused un-fathomable harm to millions is surely deserving of accolades and a gold star for character.
Just ignore the past. It won't repeat itself. Honest.
6