Home / Op-Ed / Response to “George Bush still sucks”

Response to “George Bush still sucks”

author: colin keith | contributor

Credit: Netflix

It is even scarier now that Donald Trump is the leader of America because, trust me, he knows this mindset.

George W. Bush was one of the worst presidents in modern times. There is a significant number of contributing factors which have led former president Bush to achieve this title; however, the external events, his reaction and his administration’s reaction to them are what will cement George W. Bush as one of the worst presidents of all time. Let’s start with 9/11 and the Iraq War. Citizens will not be in favour of warfare unless there has been an attack on their nation. For example, Pearl Harbour: joining another European war was of little interest to Americans. Once Pearl Harbor was attacked, war-bond sales were rampant, and the call to arms came willingly to most soldiers.

With the attack of 9/11, rallying citizens to be in favour of an invasion of a foreign country came more naturally for George W. Bush. Even if Bush’s intentions were honourable initially, the outcome of the Iraq war and its impact globally was obviously an atrocious mistake for the Bush Administration. It caused immense disorder and a Wild, Wild West-esqe ruling in Iraq, and subsequently produced the birth of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS).

A nation will always rally behind its leader, no matter how much they detest him, if they feel that their safety is at risk. It is even scarier now that Donald Trump is the leader of America because, trust me, he knows this mindset. I genuinely hope that I’m not creating a literal foreshadowing in saying this.

The op-editor goes on to discuss how Bush plunged America into an economic crisis and murdered the housing industry, and I couldn’t agree more. This topic makes my blood boil for so many different reasons. Firstly, enormous Wall Street banks such as Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JP Morgan funded George W. Bush’s political campaign. Now, theoretically, if you’re a huge financial banking institution and you fund millions upon millions of dollars to a presidential candidate, and they win, then, naturally, you’d want some return on investment, right? Well, in my opinion, I think George W. Bush gave free reign to these big Wall Street banks, which apparently have zero self-control. These banks do as they please and take advantage of whomever they wish. These actions subsequently caused the subprime mortgage crisis. To put it nicely for George W. Bush, he didn’t watch over them and set restrictions, which is what the government is supposed to do: set the rules and enforce them.

Lack of character: okay, so, George W. Bush accepts vast sums of money from colossal Wall Street banks, and then, in return, when he wins and is in power, gives these banks free reign. Now, is there any law in America that states if a donor funds your presidential bid, you are forever in their back pocket? No. Theodore Roosevelt accepted huge sums of money from the Industrialists who were just as bad as the Wall Street banks at the time, and ended up winning his presidential campaign and, most notably, turned around and fought against them. Example: the coal production dispute between coal miners and the subsequent strike. The industrialists were willing to let the production of coal cease entirely and let citizens freeze in their house without coal so that that the backlash would reflect poorly on the coal miners. President Theodore Roosevelt sent in the army to mine the coal, enraging the Industrialists. George W. Bush could have been legendary in this regard and also had the option to do so, take the money from these villains and turn around and set restrictions for proper business practice and defend those who are living pay cheque to pay cheque and on the brink of homelessness.

To conclude what I am trying to say, the United States government needs to start looking at how other countries conduct their elections. For instance, in our own country, there is a max total of $1,500 that any individual can donate to a political party. Companies cannot donate, but an individual of the company can donate the max $1,500 to the political party. Furthermore, individuals can also donate to the MP of their constituency for a max of $1,500, for a total absolute max of $3,000. Perhaps our system may not be directly beneficial, but what I’m trying to say is that America needs to find other forms so that politicians do not remain in the back pocket of other organizations.

About Our Contributors

The University of Regina's thriving community fuels our content at the Carillon! If you've got a story worth sharing or are interested in contributing please let us know! Send an email to editor@carillonregina.com and subscribe to our pitch list!