On George W. Bush - Governing Philosophy

Time to get into the weeds, it seems.

It's time to talk about everyone's favorite president, George Walker Bush!  Also known as 43.  Or Dubya.

You see, something that bothers me a lot is just how much the man is criticized, even four years out from his presidency.  President Obama continually uses him as a scapegoat (despite making the country demonstrably worse off than before).  Liberals constantly scream and cry how he was a moron who was two-steps away from becoming a tyrant (not sure how that works; idiots generally don't have the wherewithal to become tyrants).  Some conservatives even (particularly more libertarianish ones) believe he and Obama are equal amounts of bad.

So where does the truth lie?  Was president Bush some horrible, idiot man-child given hell bent on maliciously expanding the government until we were all made serfs?  Or was he something less than that?

I am actually inclined to agree with the libertarian, who saw Bush's "compassionate conservatism" as bad policy.  His solutions for societal problems, like education, was bigger [federal] government.  Following the September 11th attacks, the solution was the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, both of which granted large of amounts of power to the federal government.

However, this does not make Bush comparable to Obama in any way.  It is ridiculous to suggest that the motivations and actions of one of comparable to the other.  When Bush pushed for the Patriot Act and DHS, he was not doing it in some crazy attempt to massively expand the government to curb our freedoms.  If you believe that was his motivation, you live in some other world entirely.  He believed it was the right thing to do to keep us safe.

Now, that's not to say it was not ill-conceived.  It most certainly was.  In the hands of 43, however, it was relatively benign, designed and used to protect us.  Clearly he and many others who do not understand constitutional restrictions did not realize that out of their hands, such power could easily be abused.  Even now, the current administration is using defense bills to try and grant itself power to spy on American citizens.  Not overseas foreign nationals suspected of terror ties, but Americans themselves.  The slippery slope strikes again.

Same goes for any other big government initiative proposed by Bush.  His heart was most certainly in the right place for things like "No Child Left Behind;" the proposed (and passed) solution was just as incorrect and constitutionally dubious.  This does not make him equal President Obama, however.  They do not have the same motivations for doing things.  Bush, as far as I can tell, believed the government was capable of doing good things for the people.  Obama, on the other hand, clearly believes that the government is better and/or smarter than the people and thus should be doing things it is assumed they can not, regardless of ability.

To Bush, government was the tool for a solution, that it could help the individual improve him or herself.  To Obama, the government is the solution, all the time.  In essence, it subsumes the individual.

I think that is a very distinct philosophical difference.