Conservative Commentary on the Rise of President George W. Bush’s Approval Rating

           Recent polling has revealed that the American people’s approval of the performance as United States President of George W. Bush is now more favorable than unfavorable – the first time since early in the 43rd President’s second term.  He even enjoys a higher approval rating than his successor, President Barack Obama.

            Bush’s approval rating had been rising gradually, but was boosted recently by the favorable attention that he and his Administration received at the time of the dedication of his presidential library in Texas.  With the passage of time, both historians and the public gain perspective when viewing the record of past presidents.  In addition, presidential papers are made available for study.  These two events allow the public to appreciate that a Commander in Chief safely guided the ship of state, while realizing that the information learned from historical documents tends generally to reflect more favorably than unfavorably on past presidents. 

These events are also demonstrating a contrast between the Bush and Obama Administration, which is why the 43rd President’s approval rating has now surpassed the 44th’s.  Indeed, the two have been trending in opposite directions.   There are also a number of policy factors as to why Bush’s presidency is viewed more favorably now than before. 

A major contrast between Bush and Obama has been the latter’s massive spending and its expansion of government at the expense of liberty that is far beyond that which was initiated by the Bush Administration, which had nearly balanced the budget by 2007, prior to the Panic of 2008, as well as Obama’s tax increases.  Additionally, Obama’s spending intended to stimulate economic growth has been in vain.  The public might be recalling the prosperity of the Bush years from 2002-2008 and finding no parallel during Obama’s tenure. 

Another contrast has been the series of Obama Administration scandals: 1) the deception and cover-up during the presidential election campaign over the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the failure to have provided adequate security in the first place; 2) the extra scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service on conservative organizations and other abuses of power by that agency and 3) the solicitation by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of money to promote Obama’s federalization of health insurance from companies the agency regulates.  These scandals are serious matters and were preceded by a series of other scandals, such as the payoff to union workers at the expense of bondholders during the federal takeover of General Motors and Chrysler and the subsequent closing of mostly Republican-owned car dealerships, the funneling of federal stimulus funds to politically-connected green energy companies that went bankrupt, the failure to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, the Pigford payout intended for black farmers who were victimized by discrimination that did not establish any guidelines for verification and thus paid out to far more people than there were likely victims, the incompetent gun-walking program known as “Operation Fast and Furious,” and the scandalous trips and other activities at the General Services Administration, the prostitution scandal involving the Secret Service, a mirror of which is now being revealed was taking place among State Department employees.  In addition, the Administration has not lived up to its promises of openness and transparency.  These scandals represent a contrast with the relatively-less-scandal-marred Bush Administration.

A recent contrast between the Bush and Obama Administrations was demonstrated by the Boston Marathon Bombings.  The bombings on American soil, even more than the Benghazi attack, suggested that the Obama Administration’s boasts about winning the War on Terrorism, and in particular that al-Qaeda was in decline, were premature.  Furthermore, the attacks suggested weaknesses in intelligence sharing.  Moreover, the treatment of the captured terrorist like a common criminal and not as a war criminal underscores a continued deficiency in the Obama Administration’s policies in the war, such as weakening interrogations and publicizing the exact methods used, which allows the enemy to train to resist such measures, to intending to close Guantanamo Bay prison camp, to its inability to identify the enemy as Islamists engaged in violent jihad.  The Benghazi attack added to the perception of weakness, while the Boston bombings added to the growing list of deadly domestic attacks by jihadis during the Obama Administration.  In short, Obama’s policies in the War on Terrorism validate Bush’s, and although Obama deserves credit for continuing most of them, as I have posted frequently, he has undermined his approval by weakening some of them.  The recent leak of the Obama Administration’s vast surveillance program, further validates Bush’s policies in the war on terrorism, but appears to have gone much farther. 

            Public approval ratings even for past presidents do fluctuate, but the recent trend toward George W. Bush’s favor validates his expectation that his policy decisions would eventually be vindicated and more appreciated by the American people.