Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
View Point
GEORGE W. Bush came into the office of the presidency in a somewhat similar way as did Rutherford Hayes after a bitterly contested election in 1876. America on
a new courseHayes won over Samuel Tilden by a margin of only one electoral vote. The Ohio Republican too was a governor and also began leading a nation that had suffered from a previous scandalous administration; although Ulysses Grant was an honest man his appointees were corrupt.
The world situation, however, is 180 degrees from what it was in the 1800s. Still at the threshold of the 21st century, America is at a critical juncture in its history, perhaps more so than at any time before.
If there ever was a time we needed divine guidance it is now. We are facing increasing hostility around the world and so the big questions are on everyone's mind: Is Bush the man for the hour? Does he have what it takes? Will he be able to lead us through the tumultuous times and minefields that are certain to loom on the horizon?
As a frequent traveler abroad I can assure you that the safety of our overseas traveling citizens is much more of an issue than even 30 years ago.
Still with us are the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the civil unrest that is brewing in many nations today.
Then there are the human rights violations and the persecution of Christians in China, Sudan (to name the worst violators) and a whole array of other nations that see the U.S. as the great Satan.
The new Russian president, Vladimir Putin (one-time KGB spy), somehow seems to have re-energized the Kremlin. He has authorizied the revival of the Stalin-era melody for the national anthem as well as the adoption of a flag incorporating symbols from Russia's Communists and czars of the past. He is still a large question mark on the world scene.
Bush is not yet seasoned, but has certainly given us a lot of reassurance by surrounding himself with experts of the caliber of Colin Powell as secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense and Richard Cheney as vice president, all of whom have had Pentagon experience.
This administration is more diverse in ideology, race, gender and ethnicity than Clinton ever had. Bush chose blacks, women, Hispanics, Lebanese-Americans, Asians and Caucasians. But these men and women were not chosen for their sex or ethnicity.
BILL Clinton had an ability to gain political advantage over the short run but achieved little during his administration. Gwynne Dyer from London writes of Clinton in the New Zealand Herald: "He is a charming jerk; he is technically the finest politician."
I know that my critics will want to credit him with economic prosperity, but such credits rightfully belong to the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.
In contrast to Clinton, Bush's cabinet choices take on the flavor of Ronald Reagan, who believed he could get a lot more done if he didn't care who got the credit.
As an independent I do understand party loyalty and one could be blinded by partisan handicaps. In all fairness, I will say that Bush's leadership so far, evidenced by his team and initial decisions, gives us a lot of confidence.
Hopefully Bush could (by his example) help us rebuild the family values this nation once had, which were trashed by his predecessor.
Perhaps he could help lead us out of the woods and the moral fog Clinton left us in. We might even (politically incorrect as it may be), return to an America with its founding moral imperative, where virtues, honesty, integrity and character do matter.
Terry Bosgra in a longtime insurance agent
who lives in Hawaii Kai.