Time Magazine's Person of the Year is...

...President George W. Bush?! Time Magazine (Dec 27th,2004--Jan 3rd,2005.Issue Vol 164,No.26) also apparently found it appropriate to put below his name "American Revolutionary" it makes me wonder: what is so revolutionary about the man if the world sees him though his actions? and why do I find it a laughing stock that he is hailed as if though he is as brave (or foolhardy depending on how you see it)as the soldiers he sends to the battlefield?

Pardon me if I am wrong, but since when has it been revolutionary that the same man who allowed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security,the so-called "Patriot Act"(essentially the Orwellian equivalent to Big Brother) been ever seen as well...wise? I think I feel worse when he is compared to men who were real leaders in history: men like Franklin D. Roosevelt? I think there is a sharp difference between Roosevelt and Bush, both lived through world changing events and both made decisions that changed the world we live in today. But that's where the similarities end.

F.D.R was perhaps regarded as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents of all time but beyond all else his lived through events there were not at all what we faced today, F.D.R lived through two events: The Great Depression and World War II...what I can understand is that a true leader is one who can make their own decisions and despite pressure from others, a leader also one whom others can look up to, a leader is more than a symbol...a leader is someone who inspires others to do great things...or has a positive influence.

Since I am talking about F.D.R I might as well also talk about World War II and his role in it...unlike Woodrow Wilson who was the 28th President of the United States, F.D.R did not follow the same isolationist policy of Wilson, in fact the early isolationist attitude was what did not work (The Monroe Doctrine)... in effect on December 7, 1941 the Japanese military launched the attack on Pearl Habour pushing the United States into the Second World War.

In national issues F.D.R also sought ways to help those in depression era creating Tennessee Valley Authority, by 1935 Roosevelt was pushing "New Deal" Policy and also created the reform of Social Security, meaning taxes on the wealthy and new controls and relief for the unemployed. By the time America was involved in WW II he encouraged ordinary citizens to be involved by asking them to recycle materials and to buy war bonds...WW II was about fighting dictatorships and Imperialist ambitions, it did not merely make America safe, but the world as well,it took the involvement of British, French and other forces and two atomic bombs to bring a halt to war.

I think I agree with Doris Kearns Goodwin who said:

"Presidencies are defined in part by the challenges that confront them...events like wars and 9/11 create openings for Presidents to be remembered...we will remember Bush for having been in office during great events, but we will finally judge him on his response to these events...the war on Iraq will ultimately be judged on whether it brings greater freedom, democracy and security to the world and our nation...World War II did all that, Vietnam did not" (Time 41).

What I must ask is this: Is President Bush truly deserving of being called "The Person of the Year"? I think what I saw in the next few pages confused me just as much. They have an article titled "Grading the President" and it is an insightful look at how six scholars feel history will judge the American President...but isn't it a little too early to be talking about how history will judge the President when he just managed to retain the Presidency for another 4 year term? I digress...

Richard Norton Smith compared Bush with another President: Harry Truman. President Truman was the successor of F.D.R, whose policies in The Korean War was seen at the time as a containment or an attempt at containing communism... Smith goes on to say that: " Yet 50 years later, Truman is widely admired as a President who had the vision to define the realities of the postwar world" (Time 40).

Smith also wisely states that:

"Having watched his first term, we know this about George W. Bush: he is an important President.We don't know the long term consequences of his policies,particularly his pre-emptive war in Iraq...We can't know whether Bush's doctrine, born out of the rubble of the World Trade Center,is a 21st century version of Truman's containment...we don't know if Iraq is another Korea or to what other nations Bush's doctrine might yet apply. Likewise we can only surmise the cost, if any,in terms of alliances weakened by his policies. But we do know that Bush's approach is no less audacious than the one Truman undertook at considerable risk a half-century ago"
(Time 40).

The question is now: "Is Iraq another Korea?" Bush has yet to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors, so while I don't engage in hiding under a bomb shelter and still have the freedom of speech, I truly wonder if "Person of the Year" should be someone else more deserving...who ISN'T the President of the United States!

Signing off,

TKO