Copyright 2007-2011 JessicaMah.com. Theme by Cory Watilo.

Understanding Both Perspectives

Over the past few months, I've picked up a fascination for politics and the history of our past Presidents.  It occurred to me that every single American President since my birth has been put under extraordinary criticism, and none has left with a pristine legacy.  Which means one of two things -- either that every President is the idiot that late night TV shows make them out to be, or that being President of the United States is an incredibly daunting and difficult task.  While it's more convenient to think the former, I've come to realize the contrary after reading through the memoirs of many of our past leaders.  

While in high school, I remember being among President George W. Bush greatest critics.  I'd gone so far as to purchase bumper stickers that read "Impeach Bush", and I would debate with my mom about how terrible of a leader he was.  I remember her responding, "if being President is so easy, why don't you try running the country yourself!"  Being the naive high school student I was, I actually believed I could.  My anger towards our then-President grew even more, and I read any liberal commentary and criticism I could get my hands on.  Fahrenheit 9/11 was a favorite, and I remember thinking that our President wanted to go to war only for selfish monetary reasons, and I didn't trust that he cared about saving lives.  But after spending 18 months on the job at inDinero, I've grown an appreciation for all well-intentioned leaders, regardless of what others might think of them.  And the person I now respect the most is ironically George W. Bush.

How could a left-leaning liberal go from being a Bush hater to being a compassionate supporter?  For all my life, I had been trapped in a political bubble, limited by the opinions of my peers who had listened to nothing but one opinion:  that of the super liberal democrat.  There was no chance that I'd hear the second perspective, because none of my classmates or teachers were willing to consider it.  But I grew to realize that it was actually the opposite perspective that mattered most.  I took it up as my personal responsibility to learn about every decision he made that I felt strongly against:  the invasion of Iraq, our use of torture on terrorist detainees, the Patriot Act, the "tax cuts for the rich", his policy on stem cell research, among other policies that I remain ambivalent about.  The point of my research was to seek the opposite perspective, and to be open to changing my political opinion should I find truth in this new perspective.  

I began by reading Dick Cheney's In My Time, followed by George Bush's recent released book called Decision Points.  After finishing both, I was blown away by the candidness of both of our former leaders.  I learned that both had considered the opinions of many of their advisors, and that they went through serious consideration before making any major decisions. I shocked myself by reversing my opinion on multiple policies he made that I felt strongly against.

To my own disbelief, I felt compassion for a former President who I had despised for over a decade. Through high school and college, I didn't know how to feel anything other than anger towards our then-President.  But from taking only a few evenings to read through the other side's perspective, all of that anger just magically vanished.  I came to understand that I didn't have to agree with Bush's opinions.  I didn't have to like his questionable leadership abilities, and I didn't have to like him as a person.  But as an educated citizen, I felt responsible to escape the liberal bubble that I had grown up in, and to always go out of my way to understand multiple perspectives before giving judgement.

The most difficult part through all of this has been talking with friends and former classmates about this.  "Why would you care to read what that idiot Bush thinks?"  I've since had to come to the rescue for Obama, who's now undergoing scrutiny for his inability to magically fix our economy.  Scrutinizing others is easy, but finding the courage to compliment them is far more difficult.  When people criticize our former leaders, I try to pass on the saying my mom left me with many years ago.  

If being President is so easy, why don't you try running the country yourself?

 

| Viewed
times | Favorited 0 times

7 Comments

Dec 05, 2011
Bob said...
This is very accurate. I have come to the same conclusions after reading Obama's pre-08 election book.

However, I think the fundamental premise is wrong: the president cannot and should not try to run the country. The purpose of the position is to guide congress and cause the citizens to pressure them when necessary. Of course, it is more convenient to think of it as "running" the country but of course the Soviets tried that once.

Dec 05, 2011
Casey Ho said...
Huh. Looks like the Wikipedia link glitched out my comment. Sorry about that.
Dec 05, 2011
Derek Scruggs said...
Well, their autobiographies would make them sound good, wouldn't they?

I don't think either Bush or Cheney is stupid or evil, but they suffered from the same problem you did: they were surrounded by people who agreed completely with them. They fired dissenters like Eric Shinseki and Bruce Bartlett, both of whom were completely correct in their candid assessments.

You have to be an incredible narcissist to run for president. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to take the criticism.

Dec 06, 2011
Ronnie Stephens said...
I agree with you on some levels. I haven't read Bush's or Cheney's book, but they I'm pretty sure that their books are made in their favor to make themselves look better in the eyes of the public. It is true that you should not fault another person for the decisions are made unless you are willing to take over the task at hand and take the possible criticism.
Dec 17, 2011
Aditon said...
Well, if you read an autobiography of a president, it's essentially self-promotion, and thus would be carefully crafted to create a favorable appearance. It's admirable that you maintain a flexible stance on political issues, but one should become more informed about the epistemology of objectivity as well as studying some of the great intellectual leaders of history (non political ones) and use that as a framework before making any conclusive opinions. I believe you'll get there, as long as there is still an aggressive curiosity and a healthy dose of critical thought. I too read the Bush bio, and I currently believe this is what Bush lacked. That is to say, I believe that George Bush did not possess a curious mind and was not open to self-examination.
Jan 03, 2012
akolea said...
I am so glad to hear of your epiphany of sorts after reading Bush and Cheney's autobiography's. I would recommend the book "Strategery" as well for your continued discovery. It's too bad that our world is wrapped up in right vs. left and that most of the bubbles in our modern society seemed to be cloaked in the shelter of a left-leaning perspective. It is difficult to cut through that lens and see for yourself the truth and I applaud you for being open to learning more about the persons that have been so demonized by those very people that espouse tolerance and compassion. I am impressed.

Leave a comment...