Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
3 things to understand about President George H. W. Bush
3 things to understand about President George H. W. Bush
Feb 11, 2026 4:46 AM

There are few men who define an era, a school of thought or anything of the sort. There are even in smaller numbers those who, once dead, give us a feeling that along with them a whole es to an end. It seems to me that this is the correct reading of the death of the 41st president of the United States (1989-1993). With George H. Bush, we have lost not only a man but a style and a special kind of idea. We have an opportunity to assess the legacy of a man who, despite having served for only four years, is far more critical than a careless or naive person might think. For better or for worse, the country in which we live now was largely shaped by people who saw the world as Bush did.

The first thing to understand about President Bush, who passed away on Friday at the age of 94, is that he was a member of the Northeast coast elite; a group of men and women who has their origins, or believed to have, in the early Protestants who arrived in colonial America. The mission to erect the shining city upon the hill has always been their pass and the rule whereby they judged themselves guardiansof US institutions. So President Bush was not an ordinary man. He was something like an American aristocrat, and especially a member of a dynasty. He had a historical sense that cannot easily be replicated.

President Bush’s intellectual background was that of his father, Prescott Bush. He understood the meaning of social class and historical mission and so could easily be mistaken for a Burkean conservative or a traditionalist. However, in practice he was a pragmatic politician, a “wonder boy” to use the definition given to Hebert Hoover by Calvin Coolidge, someone who believes he has all the answers and the government is his instrument.

Prescott Bush (1895-1972), the patriarch of the family, was the archetype of New England’s high-class gentleman. He attended Yale and made a career in Wall Street as a successful banker before embarking on politics. The Republican Prescott Bush was neither a conservative nor an old-school progressive. Serving as a senator from Connecticut, he was a supporter of the major New Deal reforms and developed deep connections with the eugenic Planned Parenthood.

Prescott Bush was both an internationalist and a champion of social reformism without, however, having any sympathy for the blue collar class, a ponent of the FDR’s New Deal coalition, which placed him on the Republican side of the political dispute. In the still very poorly understood US post-war political dynamics, he and the Connecticut GOP represented liberalism while the conservative leader was the Catholic Democrat Senator Thomas J. Dodd, a man who could not even hear of hippies munists without showing his deep contempt for both.

The second thing that must be understood about the late President Bush is that he had always been a man of the political establishment for whom democracy is a small fort that needs to be bypassed or remodeled to never jeopardize high-class desires and designs.

Like his father, President Bush studied at Yale and, after serving in World War II, he migrated to Texas where he built a fortune for his own right. It was in Texas, too, that he entered politics by pursuing the career of an insider, a man of the Republican establishment, or, as this kind of politician will e known years later, a country-club Republican.

In the political contest in the much-democrat state of Texas, President Bush provided countless evidence of being above all a man of the system. He represented Houston in the House of Representatives, was President Ford’s special envoy to manded the GOP National Committee, and was United States ambassador to the UN and director of the CIA. When, at Nixon’s request, he ran for the Senate against moderate-to-conservative Democrat Lloyd Bentsen in 1970, he contested the election with a shamelessly liberal platform.

In the Republican primaries of 1980, President Bush once again played the role of party machine man and was the spearhead of the Republican elite’s effort to bar Ronald Reagan’s nomination. His whole campaign was based on the argument that Reagan was too conservative, too vulgar, too much mon Joe to represent the GOP and defeat then-President Jimmy Carter. As we all know he was wrong. Not only did Reagan win twice in a resounding fashion he engineered one of the greatest political realignments in American history: the blue collar workers, the class scorned by Prescott Bush and other country-club Republicans, began to abandon the old Democratic Party to support Reagan in his triumphant victory.

The third thing to understand about President Bush is that he was never a conservative and never showed himself as one until it paid electoral dividends. He was not sympathetic to the old-guard conservatives, whose ideas were roughly speaking dismantling the federal administration and undoing the economic and social reforms that created the deep state and crony capitalism. He likewise did not like libertarians, who were considered very radical for country club GOP standards because they wanted solid money and a government that respected the individual liberties guaranteed by the constitution.

President Bush was a friend of the nanny state. As someone who made his career occupying positions of power and influence in the federal administration, it is difficult to imagine him otherwise. The Bush presidential candidate who needed the votes of the conservative populist coalition created by Reagan, the Bush “read my lips: no new taxes” quickly gave way to a Bush who preached the increase of the welfare state and, surprisingly, created new taxes.

However, the most disastrous thing about the Bush administration was mitment to the political agenda of neoconservatives in international relations. President Bush, and Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama after him, believed that taxpayers’ money and the lives of American soldiers should be spent and sacrificed in favor of the spread of liberal democracy throughout the world. Therefore, this produced an increased of the plex’s power and brought chaos to all four corners of the world.

It is a truism in the classes of Foreign Policy Analysis to conclude that President Bush and his allies were extremely careless in conducting the events that led to the Desert Storm operation. First of all, because he never made it clear to Saddam Hussein that the United States was willing to go to war over Kuwait and, secondly because all diplomatic alternatives were immediately discarded in favor of the war. It’s even funny to see how Saddam Hussein, a U.S. ally in the fight against Iran, was cast as an Islamic Adolf Hitler in such a short space of time.

Understanding these three faces of late President Bush – the elitist, the establishment man, and the non-conservative – is the best way to understand the modern United States and the post-Cold War world he helped to create. As we look toward Washington, we see a bureaucracy stripped of any democratic control and power-driven, growing every day with the support of Democrats and establishment Republicans. While in the world we can see a war promoted by the liberal international order against nation-states and national identities in favor of a global society. President Bush was a champion of both causes: the Leviathan state and the elitist liberal internationalism.

To a large extent, the worldwide populism and, in the United States, President Donald Trump, are responses to this world created by people like the now-deceased Bush. The systematic rejection that GOP voters have shown each electoral cycle toward Bush-style Republicans should be a signal to the liberal establishment that the time for change has arrived.

I believe that President Bush was a good man, a good husband, and a good father. He was a true patriot and someone who thought he was doing his best for patriots. In short, he was a person who can be a role model. Nevertheless, this should not serve as an excuse to overlook the flaws of his ideas and his presidency. There is much to learn from his mistakes. If the Republican Party wants to survive as a conservative party, it must leave Bush like ideas in the same place where the former president has now rested. May George Herbert Walker Bush, his class and his ideas rest in peace.

Homepage photo credit:Gerald Ford,Richard Nixon,George Herbert Walker Bush,Ronald Reagan, andJimmy Carterat the dedication of the Reagan Presidential Library (Left to right).Wiki Commons.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
The Presidential Debate and Pandering to Women
I think somebody needs to admit that the level of pandering to women in this election is over the top. Whether it is Ann Romney awkwardly yelling, “I love you women” at the Republican National Convention, or the ridiculous “War on Women” meme from the left. The examples are just too many to cite and evaluate for one post. So much of it is focus driven and poll tested and here with us to stay, but the issue still needs...
Redistribution and the Sacred Right of Property
“Scandinavian economies are some of the most market-oriented on the planet” says economist Scott Sumner, who adds “Denmark is the most market-oriented country on earth.” This peculiar claim is even more curious considering that it is based on the Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Economic Freedom. On the Heritage Index, which ranks countries based on ponents of economic freedom, the United es in at #10, lumped in with the “mostly free” countries. All of the Scandinavian countries are lower on...
Are Protectionism and Patriotism Incompatible Principles?
This morning at Ethika Politika, I argue that “acting primarily for the sake of national interest in international affairs runs contrary to a nation’s highest ideals.” In particular, I draw on the thought of Vladimir Solovyov, who argued that, morally speaking, national interest alone cannot be the supreme standard of international action since the highest aspirations of each nation (e.g. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”) are claimed to be universal goods. I would here like to explore his...
Diversity Welcome, But Only within Very Strict Parameters
Gallaudet University is a unique institution. Founded in 1864 in Washington, DC to meet the educational needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing, the school currently serves just under 2000 students in various capacities. As one might imagine, it is a munity, aware that they educate a group of people who have often been victims of discrimination. The school asserts: Gallaudet University as an institution embraces diversity… A university has an obligation to be a place where all views can be...
What is Subsidiarity?
What is Catholic Church’s teaching on the size of government? And what is the principle of subsidiarity? Our friends at CatholicVote.org have put together a brief video to help answer these questions. ...
No Bullies in Schools — Unless It’s the Government
Laurel Broten, the Education Minister of Ontario, stated on Oct. 10 that the “province’s publicly funded Catholic schools may not teach students that abortion is wrong because such teaching amounts to ‘misogyny,’ which is prohibited in schools under a controversial anti-bullying law.” Ontario enacted Bill 13 in June and it casts a wide net against bullying in schools. It is under this law that Broten has declared that Catholic schools may not teach that abortion is wrong. Broten noted, Bill...
America’s Top Diplomat: Rich People Don’t Contribute to Economic Growth
“There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the [economic] growth of their own countries.” If such a statement were made by an activist at an Occupy Wall Street rally, most adults would chuckle and mend the budding young Marxist take a course in economics. But what do we do when the claim is made by Hillary Clinton at an event hosted by a former U.S. president and in front of an audience of global leaders?...
Acton Commentary: Politics, Social Justice and the Non-Negotiables
For many on the Catholic left, the confusion of “non-negotiables” in Church teaching with matters of prudential judgment has e all mon. In this week’s Acton Commentary (published October 17), Dr. Don Condit looks at how Vice President Joseph Biden’s “facts” about Obamacare were received by the Catholic bishops.The full text of his essay follows. Subscribe to the free, weekly Acton News & Commentary and other publicationshere. Politics, Social Justice and the Non-Negotiables byDonald P. Condit Vice President Joseph Biden’s...
The Market Outlook for the Facts of the Matter
With two presidential debates and one vice presidential debate already behind us, fact-checkers across the nation must be pulling their hair out. A brief survey of factcheck.org sheds some important light on the many claims and figures that have been tossed around in the last two weeks, revealing little concern from either ticket for the facts of the matter. Why is this the case? And must we simply resign ourselves to this dismal state of affairs? Take a look at...
Acton Commentary: Representation without Taxation?
“No taxation without representation” was a slogan taken up and popularized by this nation’s Founders, and this idea became an important animating principle of the American Revolution. But this was also an era where landowners had the primary responsibilities in civic life; theirs was the land that was taxed and so theirs too should be the rights to vote and be represented. Thus went the logic. But the question that faces us now, nearly two and a half centuries later,...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved