Missile Defense and Bush's "New Gravitas" 

The New York Times, in an unsigned editorial Friday, October 12, says some very laudatory things about President George W. Bush, an event worth noting. Typical of the Times, however, the piece fails to reflect clear thought even while locating the proverbial acorn found by the visually impaired pig. 

Rather than conclude that they and others underestimated Mr. Bush, or focused on the wrong things in their analysis of him, media pundits everywhere now espouse the theory that George W. is a latter-day version of Shakespeare’s Prince Hal. Clearly, the events of September 11 have transmogrified his character, rendering the current obvious silk purse out of the previous (just-as-obvious) sow’s ear. 

Hogwash. George W. Bush is the same man he always was, a fact dimly perceived by the Times’ editorial board, and reflected in their observation that, “Only in his insistence on discarding the 1972 ABM Treaty and building a missile shield did he stick to the pre-September 11 presidential script,” an observation they deplore because it “will not help him win Russian support for a counterattack against terrorism.” 

Bush’s greatest strength, like Ronald Reagan’s before him, is an innate moral compass. He perceived the immorality of refusing to protect American lives in order to uphold an agreement with an entity that no longer exists, and the moral repugnance of Mutual Assured Destruction, the theory on which the ABM treaty rests. The difference in his leadership in the post-September 11 world is this: circumstances have altered in a way that makes his steadfast commitment to protecting American lives more obvious, more immediate, and more important. 

Bush’s commitment to missile defense came from his understanding that protecting American citizens from foreign attack was the first priority of government and leadership. The media’s opinion of him has changed because that fact is now too obvious for even them to miss.

Printer-Friendly Version