Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
3 things to understand about President George H. W. Bush
3 things to understand about President George H. W. Bush
Apr 23, 2026 5:54 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
Wilhelm Röpke on liberalism and Catholic social teaching
This week’s Acton Commentary, adapted from my preface to the newest Acton Institute publication The Humane Economist: A Wilhelm Röpke Reader, illustrates what makes Röpke such an interesting and vital economist: Röpke saw his project in holistic terms involving intersecting and interdependent spheres or orden that to be fully appreciated and understood scientifically must be examined in their economic, social, and moral dimensions. mitments to mainline economic analysis, the importance of social institutions, and the moral and religious framework of...
The Virtue of Liberalism
Today, Law & Liberty published the text of my lecture for the Philadelphia Society in October: “Why Economic Nationalism Fails.” The topic for the panel was “Conservatism and the Coming Economy.” Since I’m not a determinist and doubt my own powers of prediction, I focused on what political economy conservatives ought to support in the future, despite worrying trends in the present: Conservatives ought to reaffirm the good of economic liberty, both domestically and internationally. Free markets and free trade,...
An encyclical on China and the US?
Sen. Marco Rubio’s recent speech on capitalism and mon good, taking its point of departure in Rerum Novarum, has gotten a good bit of coverage. Yesterday he delivered remarks at the National Defense University and opened with these words: This morning I am honored to speak here at the National Defense University to discuss the defining geopolitical relationship of this century: the one between the United States and China. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a papal encyclical on this...
Chernobyl and Alexander Solzhenitsyn on a culture of deceit
Yesterday, December 11 was the birthday of the great Russian writer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, born in 1918. The Imaginative Conservative published an essay I wrote on Solzhenitsyn and the HBO series Chernobyl. If you have not seen the series, it is excellent. As a warning, some of the scenes, especially in episode three are tough to watch, but it is incredibly well done. One of the underlying themes of the series is the problem of widespread deceit. This of course was...
Trade war hits home: How tariffs disrupt American businesses
Despite the “America-first” claims of trade protectionists and economic nationalists, we continue to see the ill effects of the Trump administration’s recent wave of tariffs—particularly among American businesses, workers, and consumers. Alas, while such controls may serve to temporarily benefit a select number of businesses or industries, they are just as likely to distort and contort any number of other fruitful relationships and creative partnerships across the economic order—at home, abroad, and everywhere in between. In a recent article for...
Acton Line podcast: Elizabeth Warren wants $3 trillion tax hike; Mark Hall on America’s Christian founding
Massachusetts Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has proposed to increase taxes for big businesses and high earners to rake in nearly $3 trillion per year. Warren plans to use this tax to fund spending in health care, education, and family benefits, and as a result, according to Warren, the economy would grow. Are economists in agreement with Warren? What would increased taxes on the wealthy do for the economy? Dave Hebert, professor of economics and director of the...
A bait and switch at Peter’s Pence?
The Wall Street Journal’s recent article on the Vatican’s main charitable appeal landed like a bombshell this week. And it didn’t help that we’re in the midst of the holiday giving season. The Roman Catholic Church conducts an annual collection known as Peter’s Pence, which is touted as supporting mercy ministries and serving those most in need. Shockingly, the Journal has reported that for at least the last five years “as little as 10%” of the approximately $55 million raised...
How would Jeremy Corbyn change the UK?
American observers may know that Jeremy Corbyn wishes to fundamentally transform the British economy and reshape the special relationship between the U.S. and the UK. “Is it moral to confiscate people’s property and deny the elderly the right to control their own property?” asks Rev. Richard Turnbull, as he explores Corbyn’s economic proposals, from providing “free” services to the full nationalization of whole industries. For instance, Corbyn’s economic plan would destroy £367 billion of stock wealth. Turnbull – the director...
Artificial Intelligence: A contribution or detriment to human flourishing?
In my recent book, Artificial Humanity. An Essay on the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence (2019, IF Press), I analyze several interesting aspects of artificial intelligence (AI) from a philosophical, anthropological and even ‘futuristic’ point of view. My intention throughout the book is to keep the reader grounded in real expectations about AI and its integration with rational, intelligent and free human living parison with so-called “advanced” machine learning. Therefore, I ask fundamental questions as guidance to readers who have followed...
Jeremy Corbyn would destroy the US-UK special relationship
Citizens across the UK are casting their votes in the 2019 general election. Jeremy Corbyn “seems in equal parts blind to the violence of socialism, the goodness of the West, and anti-Semitism in his own party,” I write in my new article for The American Spectator. The voters’ decision will have a decisive impact on the United States and the West as a whole. The Labour Party leader would destroy the special relationship of the U.S. and the UK. After...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved