Comments on: A good column from the New Republic

By: SJ

SJ — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:45:17 +0000

Nick, my target was Rafe, not you.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:54:45 +0000

Indeed, SJ, many things are entirely possible. I wasn’t, by the way quoting a libertarian. I was quoting Dennis Altman’s vigorous irritation with people who wouldn’t give due credit to the Bush Administration on AIDS. Now Altman is an honest, knowledgeable, intelligent person who is highly knowledgeable on the subject. He’s an AIDS activist of a couple of decades standing for Christ’s sake and ideologically and personally about as far from George W Bush as it’s possible to be.

I wasn’t quoting him to demonstrate my even-handedness.

By: SJ

SJ — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:21:50 +0000

…I have seen commentators who are not notably friendly to Bush give him credit on AIDS.

You aren’t in any position to judge, and as say, you haven’t even bothered to check.

Even-handedness isn’t a virtue in and of itself. It’s quite possible that the truth is that Bush didn’t do anything worthwhile, and that libertarians really, really, really are complete idiots.

By: denningesque

denningesque — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:14:10 +0000

A fascinating column. One thing is for sure, pronouncing on any administration should be adjourned for at least 5 or so years after its end date. Truman left the White House in 1952 with a 25% approval rating. His administration was seen as bumbling, uncouth and scandal prone. And it had its fair share of problems. Kennedy, the next Democrat incumbent, kept his distance from Truman because he was perceived a failure. But Truman’s administration achieved more than Kennedy (whose policy accomplishments were modest) and had a far more positive impact on the country than Johnston. The Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan is America at its finest. Reagan’s departure was far from “clean.” On the foreign policy side of things he gets more kudos with the passing years. With time I think Bush will be well remembered in East Europe and the Balkans. He saw Russia as it is and not as we would like it to be ( the “EU delusion”) and should be forever praised for what he did for Albania and Kosovo. I still think it was an ordinary administration. I just think the simplistic anti American drivel that passes for analysis is puerile. Life and politics are way too complicated for “good” v “evil” analysis.

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:14:59 +0000

Two points, one serious and the other not.
Very few critics are prepared to be even-handed, to give out praise and blame in fair measure, or to apply the same standards to friends and enemies. That has severely damaged the credibility of the commentariat.
I don’t have time to check but I have seen commentators who are not notably friendly to Bush give him credit on AIDS.

Less seriously, on planning ahead, this is a piece on the outsourcing of the Presidency and what could happen when Bush completed his term.

By: Tel_

Tel_ — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:20:29 +0000

He was pretty down on Bush. But he said his homelessness policy had been very good.

And here was me thinking that Bush never planned ahead.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:57:01 +0000

Roger I don’t know the facts on this but I’ve heard Dennis Altman argue quite passionately that Bush’s international assistance to anti-AIDS was much more than you’re describing it as. He knows his stuff and can hardly be described as a friend of Bush.

I was also at a Brotherhood of St Laurence function last night sitting next to someone who works with homeless and is interested in homeless policy. He was pretty down on Bush. But he said his homelessness policy had been very good.

Again I am simply relating this second hand.

By: roger.migently

roger.migently — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:48:06 +0000

I am bemused by the regular praise of Bush's AIDS initiative in Africa, as if people are desparate to find one, just one, thing he did that they can say was good out of all his Presidency. But from what I can gather, his policy has actually resulted in an overall increase in AIDS in Africa. His policy supports abstinence to control the spread of AIDS and refuses funds to organisations which are not anti-abortion. From the St Petersburg Times:

USAID is the single largest donor of condoms in the developing world, providing $75-million worth annually, or about a third of all donations. Yet, according to the PAI report, 16 poor countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East have been cut off from USAID condom shipments because their family planning groups are associated with the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which refuses to sign the antiabortion pledge. In another 13 countries, including Ethiopia and Zambia, the nations' leading providers of reproductive health services also no longer receive USAID condom supplies.

and Phillip Adams:

I was, however, puzzled that the most indecent and unethical of issues wasnt raised: the quasi-genocidal impact of the Vaticans policy on condoms in Africa. Vast numbers have died, are dying and will die because of this insane and utterly reprehensible prohibition. Aided and abetted by the Bush administrations faith-based approach to social, medical and scientific issues, the Vaticans condemnation of the condom is on the short list of the cruellest, most appalling pieces of public policy in human history.

George Bush's policy goes hand in glove with the Vatican's and as far as I can tell it is not a policy which ought to be congratulated.