Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Posted on 08/04/2009 6:50:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What if a president, on his own initiative, under no demands from staff or from supporters or opponents, set out to spend an unprecedented amount of money on AIDS in Africa, literally billions of dollars, at a time when the nation could not afford it, citing his faith as a primary motivation and, ultimately, saved more than a million lives?
Wouldn’t the story be front-page news, especially in top, liberal newspapers? Wouldn’t it lead on CNN, MSNBC and the “CBS Evening News”? Might statues be erected to the man in the nation’s more “progressive” cities?
What if the president was George W. Bush?
I pose these uncomfortable questions for two reasons: 1) President Bush did precisely that regarding the African AIDS tragedy; and 2) a study claims that Bush’s remarkable action has indeed saved many precious lives.
And as someone who has closely followed Bush’s humanitarian gesture from the outset, I’m not surprised that the former president continues to not receive the accolades he deserves — including even from conservative supporters — for this generous act.
Bush himself realizes the lack of gratitude and media attention. I personally witnessed it very recently, on June 17, when I was in attendance for one of Bush’s first postpresidential speeches, in Erie, Pa. There, too, he mentioned the AIDS initiative — even adding that one of his daughters is in Africa today, working on the epidemic — and, there again, it received no press coverage whatsoever.
It all began in January 2003, during the State of the Union. In a completely unexpected announcement, Bush asked Congress for $15 billion for AIDS in Africa — drugs, treatment and prevention.
America soon learned this was not the typical State of the Union throwaway line: To show his seriousness, Bush followed on April 29 with a press conference in the East Room, where he exhorted Congress to “act quickly” on his “emergency plan.”
Accompanied by the secretary of state, he prodded America’s wealthy allies to join this “urgent work,” this “great effort.” He explained that AIDS was a “dignity of life” issue and “tragedy” that was the “responsibility of every nation.” This was a “moral imperative,” with time “not on our side.”
Bush then shocked the press by pointing to an unusual personal motivation, citing the parable of the Good Samaritan: “[T]his cause is rooted in the simplest of moral duties,” he told journalists. “When we see this kind of preventable suffering … we must act. When we see the wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not, America will not, pass to the other side of the road.”
With amazing quickness, just four weeks later, Bush inked a $15-billion plan and challenged Europe to match the U.S. commitment without delay.
How did the plan work? In April, a major study was released by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. According to the study, the first to evaluate the outcomes of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Bush initiative has cut the death toll from HIV/AIDS by more than 10% in targeted African countries from 2003 to 2007.
“It has averted deaths — a lot of deaths,” said Dr. Eran Bendavid, one of the researchers. “It is working. It’s reducing the death toll from HIV. People who are not dying may be able to work and support their families and their local economy.” Co-researcher, Dr. Peter Piot, says PEPFAR “is changing the course of the AIDS epidemic.”
The study — still having received virtually no press attention several months after its release — estimates that the Bush relief plan has saved more than 1 million African lives.
Those are the facts. What about opinion, particularly public opinion?
That brings me back to my initial point. If a Democratic Party president had done this, he would be feted as both a national hero and international hero on his way to a ceremony with the Nobel Committee. George W. Bush, however, is getting very little credit — or, at least, no fanfare.
Again, I’m not surprised. I first wrote about the Bush AIDS initiative in a 2004 book, followed by several articles, including an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, plus many discussions on radio and TV talk shows.
I was struck by two reactions, from the left and the right:
From the left, I got incensed e-mails from Bush-hating elements refusing to concede that Bush did what he did. They said the craziest things, insisting not a dime had been spent and that the program effectively did not even exist. They could not find it within their power to grant that Bush could do something so kind, which they should naturally embrace. I’ve been most disappointed by my fellow Christians in the “social justice” wing — Catholics and Protestants alike — who have been deafeningly silent on a campaign that ought to serve as a poster child for precisely what they advocate.
To be fair, some have stepped up to thank Bush, including no less than Bill Clinton, as well as musician-activist Bob Geldof. But they are the exception. (In a piece for Time, Geldof wrote about the moment he personally asked Bush about the lack of awareness of the AIDS initiative: “Why doesn’t America know about this?” Bush answered: “I tried to tell them. But the press weren’t much interested.”)
From the right, I still get angry e-mails explaining that what Bush did for Africans is not a “core function” of government, certainly not enumerated anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Fiscal conservatives asserted that America could not afford this huge expenditure at a time of post-9/11 recession, burgeoning budget deficits, on the heels of a massive operation in Afghanistan, and as military spending was about to go through the roof as U.S. troops headed for Baghdad.
Technically, or perhaps fiscally, much of this is true.
Yet, to be sure, George W. Bush understood the financial cost — and said so explicitly. Nonetheless, he judged that only America could carry out this “act of compassion” at that critical juncture. He also judged, apparently, that only he, as a Western leader, had the will to do this.
So, he did it. He absorbed the cost to try to save lives.
Well, we now know that the policy has worked — just as, yes, we know it contributed to a record deficit. Still, it is rare when history can so directly, indisputably credit a president for a specific, undeniable policy achievement — a genuinely generous one that clearly emerged from his personal doing, from his heart. Millions of lives have been spared or bettered due to President Bush’s intervention.
But while the policy helped, it never did anything to help George W. Bush’s terrible disapproval rating — and still will not, given its lack of attention.
Well, George W. Bush, the much-ridiculed man of faith — ridiculed often because of his faith — always said he never expected rewards in this lifetime. Here’s one that apparently will need to wait.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004)
and professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
I don't know ... the drugs are somewhat effective, and if they can keep infected people working, that's a good thing.
My guess is that an attitude shift came to Africa.
We certainly cannot discount that -- it would be a HUGE factor in preventing new infections. But again, infection rates are incredibly high there, and treatment of infected people is still necessary.
Oh, if only our own nation would repent "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is not just an option.
I'll agree to that....
Unfortunately, that is offset by Dubya’s utter refusal to act decisively to stop the invasion of illegals who behave like criminal terrorists. That has had a profoundly negative effect on my life.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
I believe that conservatism, based on the words of our Founding Fathers, must also include morality, and part of that morality is goodness, not only in our own behavior, but in how we treat others. I concur with de Toqueville when he said, "America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, she shall cease to be great."
And because of that - because God has blessed this nation with great wealth (our poor are richer than western Europe's middle class)- I believe that part of America's morality is helping others in catastrophic need. I also believe that this is conservative to the core.
We are all obliged to give as individuals, and we do - we are the most generous people on earth. But there are situations that are beyond our individual reach. As an example, the Tsunami. We, as Americans gave in abundance, but it was our naval vessels - our taxpayer funded military - that took our gifts to those in need. We could not, as individuals done what needed to be done to get aid to the tsunami victims.
This is obviously very subjective, but America has historically helped the victims of earthquakes and catastrophic events, and I believe that the aid to Africa, given with the conditions President Bush placed upon it, based on the Ugandan model of ABC - abstinence, faithfulness, and then condoms - has been in keeping with our moral principles and our goodness as a nation.
Which, if you would bother to find out what the Bush policy was, and the controls on the aid were, you would understand was exactly what was happening.
We were most certainly NOT "subsudizing behaviors that are dysfunctional." We were, under the Bush policy, requiring moral behavior to get the aid.
The State Department leftists went crazy when Condi Rice introduced the ABC pattern of behavior as a requirement for help because it was so MORAL. But then it started to work, and some of them came around.
As for your comments about Obama - they are irrelevant to the discussion, and I understand full well what is going on. It has nothing to do with stopping the mass death in Africa.
I agree with them.
It's not America's job to prop up the rest of the world. After the deficit is paid off and all government bills are paid and our own citizens are properly cared for ... THEN let's talk about foreign aid.
Amen, brother rdb3!
Do you sincerely believe that the drugs stop HIV infections from passing?
To paraphrase Davy Crockett, it wasn’t his to give.
“We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.” Col. David Crockett, US Representative from Tennessee
How can you possibly blame President Bush for Obama's election? It makes absolutely no factual, historical or logical sense. It seems to be the product of people who are so desperate to hate President Bush that they blame him for things that aren't his doing, just so they can stay mad at him.
That's not you, is it? You're not setting aside all the facts, are you?
The men in Africa needed moral training, and they got it, and that's why the AIDs epidemic abated.
It is my understanding that the Obama admin. is planning on removing the moral restrictions, and if they do that, you will have an argument.
They painted Bush the bad guy so well Laura probably hated him.
They tried to do this to Rush...
They tried Palin...
They are now making anyone who dares to question 0bama out to be NUTS with childish name calling..
right wing nuts
birthers
fringe group (tea party protesters)
it is very sad too watch, it is all surreal to watch the media protect and promote a man and their radical left politics and ideals.
I'm doing the job others don't want to do.
President Bush was an honorable man who was not prepared for the viper’s nest of Washington DC.
Sheesh!
No, of course not -- and I agreed with you on that.
But the drugs do help to keep the folks already infected with HIV alive; and given that the alternative is generally for them to die and leave behind orphans with no means of support, the drugs must be counted not only as a positive moral good, but also a practical good.
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic, but no I am not kidding.
No matter how much you hate Bush for his lack of spending restraint, or immigration reform, or whatever faults you ascribe to him, THAT was a really ignorant statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.