D

Top Story

Dirk Nowitzki Is Saving Dallas Basketball One Shot at a Time »

Search DMagazine.com
Dallas Weather:
n/a

President George W. Bush Comes Home (Yo, Dubya)

Five writers explore how the Bushes will affect our lives in Dallas—from why China might be our new BFF to how to survive an encounter with the Secret Service.

Published 3.18.2009

From D Magazine APR 2009

Table Contents
1. George Bush is Big in Asia Wick Allsion
2. Don’t Bum Rush the Bushes Trey Garrison
5. Dreaming of Laura Pamela Gwyn Kripke

So they’re back. Fifteen years after leaving us for the Texas Governor’s Mansion, Laura and George W. Bush have returned to Dallas. Not since the Jonas Brothers bought a house in Westlake have so many North Texans gossiped about their new neighbors. When the former leader of the free world moves to town, there’s a lot to talk about. In the following pages, five writers explore how the Bushes will affect our lives in Dallas—from why China might be our new BFF to how to survive an encounter with the Secret Service. Let’s be careful out there.

George Bush is Big in Asia

George Bush’s popularity (yes, popularity) could be a boon for Dallas.
by Wick Allison, illustration by Sean McCabe

Bush
NECK AND NECK: Laura Bush straightens then President-Elect George W. Bush’s tie before his first speech after the Supreme Court ruling that ended the 2000 presidential election in his favor.
photography by Brooks Kraft/Corbi

Ex-presidents seem to follow a protocol that requires them to disappear for a few years after they leave office. Jimmy Carter was barely heard from after being beat by Ronald Reagan; he only emerged (as an unwelcome gadfly) when Bill Clinton became president. George H.W. Bush also disappeared, only to reappear in public when his son asked him and Clinton to spearhead the tsunami relief effort. To everyone’s amazement, even Bill Clinton stepped off center stage until the call came from the Oval Office.

Considering his low approval ratings, George W. Bush might be expected to be even more low-key than his predecessors. But I would like to argue a different line for the former president to take. While showing proper deference to his successor, he still can have a very positive continuing role where it counts most for the American economy: in India and China.

As it turns out, the former president’s approval ratings abroad are not as low as people might think. In India, Bush is the most popular American president in history. Future historians may look at Iraq as a blip on the screen (an expensive blip, yes, but still a blip) and count the president’s success in courting India as the major foreign policy turnaround of the early 21st century. Because of it, Bush could become one of the most influential and respected ex-presidents in the nation’s history. If he succeeds, Dallas as his operating base will reap many of the benefits.

Bush is not known as a man who indulges in retrospection. So while he suffered many “disappointments” (his word) during his two terms, don’t expect him to dwell on them. He will write the obligatory memoir, but that will be an effort directed at his first priority (after overseeing the fundraising of his presidential library at SMU): repairing his own family’s fortunes. The sale of the Texas Rangers brought him an after-tax return of about $12 million, which no doubt increased substantially in the bull markets during his time in public service. But there’s also little doubt that he, like everybody else, has seen those gains disappear in the market collapse. To begin the repair program, he gave his first post-presidential speech in Calgary in mid-March, probably netting him an easy $150,000, and there’s little doubt more will follow. Even so, Bush is likely to be considerably more circumspect than Bill Clinton in this regard (as in others). The Clintons have reportedly amassed a $100 million fortune since leaving office.

America’s preeminence in the post-Cold War era and its dominance of the global economy have given ex-presidents a prestige abroad that Americans at home cannot really grasp. Bill Clinton has not been shy about using it, which is why so many governments and sovereign funds are donors to his foundation. While Bush is not likely to follow Clinton’s lead in grasping after every available dollar, he could not ask for a better model in forging his post-presidential identity.

Like Jimmy Carter, Clinton established a nonprofit foundation, named it after himself, and began leveraging his name to do good works. His HIV/AIDS initiative—an issue Bush cares deeply about—has provided free, life-saving medicine to 1.4 million people, mostly in Africa. His climate initiative is working with 40 of the world’s largest cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. His foundation is now tackling childhood obesity.

Bush is in a position to do more than promote good causes, important as that is. His strength is in Asia, and he should use Bill Clinton’s model to leverage it.

China, of course, does not encourage public opinion polls. But a recent Los Angeles Times story found indications of affection for Bush everywhere, especially in Beijing, where his image dominates an exhibit hall in the Cultural Palace of Nationalities. Bush extended a hand to China immediately after 9/11 and backed it up with free-trade policies that enabled China to become the third-largest economy in the world. He sealed the deal by attending the 2008 Summer Olympics in the face of criticism over China’s human rights record. No one action could have been more important to the face-conscious, still-insecure Chinese. The Times quotes a retired nuclear scientist: “We will never forget that the leader of the most developed country in the world stood up to pressure to come to the Olympics.”

Bush
GOOD MATCH: President Bush with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
photography courtesy of Getty Images

Like Japan, China is an export-driven economy. Japan’s severe contraction this year shows the risks of building an economy based on other people’s purchasing power and subject to the ups and downs of the energy market. Indeed, China will manage to maintain its growth in 2009 only by pumping a huge stimulus investment into the economy (10 times ours relative to GNP), and even then growth is expected to fall from 9 percent to barely 5 percent.

India, on the other hand, depends little on exports. Its is a service economy. While India, too, has been hit by the global meltdown, growth is only expected to fall to 7 percent from 9 percent last year. (A report by the Federal Reserve of Dallas last August predicted that India’s economic growth would be more resilient because of its mix, and so it has proven to be.)

In the world’s largest democracy and now fastest-growing economy, we have tangible proof of Bush’s popularity. During his time in office, polls in India routinely gave him approval ratings in the high 50s up to the low 70s, even while Indians expressed disapproval of such policy decisions as the Iraq War.

To understand why Bush is so popular, we have to understand a little about India’s recent history. After independence in 1947, India kept three vestiges of its colonial past, one that would serve it very poorly and two that would serve it very well. The first was a state-managed economy, brought to India by English graduates of the London School of Economics and maintained by Indian graduates of the London School of Economics. We know how well that worked. The second vestige, which worked considerably better, was the British educational system. The third was, as every educated Indian’s second tongue, the English language.

Anti-colonialism and a socialist ideology in the first 50 years of the new country’s independence tilted India toward the Soviet Union. In response, American policy makers adopted Pakistan as our proxy in the region, which only pushed India further into Moscow’s open arms. As the Cold War heated up, India became perhaps the most anti-Western country in the world not directly under Soviet or Maoist control.

The Soviet Union was India’s largest trading partner, and when it collapsed, one or two Indian states—which have a great deal of autonomy in the Indian federal system—started gingerly experimenting with loosening business regulation, encouraging entrepreneurship, and allowing free trade. The experiments were so successful that even the orthodox socialists in New Delhi had to wake up. Even so, Indian hostility was so deeply ingrained that, three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Tom Clancy could write a best-selling novel envisioning a scenario in which India would ally with a Japanese business cartel to take down the United States in the Pacific.

With three moves, Bush reversed this decades-old antipathy. First, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he threw the Taliban out of Afghanistan, removing an Islamicist putsch in a nation long friendly with India. Second, he abolished restrictions on India’s access to civilian nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, which was viewed as sign of India’s maturity as a world power. Third, he visited India in 2006 to establish new bilateral relations, a personal touch that was welcomed as a sign of America’s new respect for India’s emergence in the world economy. Meanwhile, the Bush presidency coincided with the rapid rise of outsourcing by American companies, which fueled enormous employment growth in India.

For his willingness to embrace this recalcitrant emerging power and overturn a half-century of American policy toward the subcontinent, Bush is regarded, if not as the father, at least as the rich uncle of the Indian economic miracle.

The former president could do no greater service to his country than to continue to build on the foundation he laid in Indo-American and Sino-American relations. The Bush library complex will include a policy institute that, I hope, will focus on his most notable foreign policy success, the new bilateral relationship with India. By bringing together Asian and American policy elders, business leaders, and opinion leaders, the institute could continue the work he began. Under the president’s leadership, the Bush institute has the opportunity to become the place where conversations between the world’s two fastest-growing economies and the world’s largest economy take place and where bilateral policy questions can be addressed in a less formal, more collegial, and more creative environment than allowed by diplomacy through official channels.

The high regard for Bush in Asia could be a major asset as Dallas becomes an international player. Dallas already has a direct stake in the success of the major Asian economies. China’s shipping containers are unloaded at the Port of Long Beach onto railway cars headed to the Dallas Inland Port for breakup and delivery across the country. Major Dallas employers such as Texas Instruments, Kimberly-Clark, Hewlett-Packard’s service division (formerly EDS), AT&T, and Verizon have made major investments in China and India. Dallas already is blessed with vibrant and prosperous Chinese and Indian communities. (The Chinese have a Dallas daily newspaper; Indians here have their own glossy monthly magazine.)

With social and business connections already so well established in Dallas, the Bush institute is perfectly positioned to strengthen the intellectual and public policy connections that smooth the way for friendly relations and increased trade. That would be a lasting legacy—for George W. Bush, for Asia, for America, and for Dallas.

Write to wicka@dmagazine.com.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 15, 2009
We stated in our story “He’s Big in Asia” that “Ross Perot’s companies have more employees in India than in the United States.” Of Perot Systems’ 23,000-plus employees working across the globe, 65 percent are based in the United States. 

(17)

Login  or Create an Account  to comment

Anonymous on May 11, 2009 @ 2:44:00 PM

I've never voted for Bush, but nonetheless respect the man and the office. I doubt that history will be as unkind to him as the media have been. Even from this liberal Democrat's perspective much of the coverage was demonstrably disgraceful.

But what I really want to comment on is Feherty: had he written "If Bush could avoid the hordes of Muslims in the neighborhood contemplating suicide bombing" he'd be out of his job tomorrow morning. If CBS responds at all - my guess is that it will not (again, quite in contrast to how it would respond to criticism from CAIR), but if they do they'll make it a free speech issue and demonize their critics. After all they've been doing it for years.

The Secret Service on the case? No, clearly protected speech, just as a novel that fantasizes the assassination of a President is.

There seems to have been a revolution in the composition of the editorial staffs of the major media since Time named the American Soldier its Person of the year. Slurs such as this one have become so casual that I doubt any of them have noticed how far they've drifted Conversely, the Western Media will never report what Islamist extremist groups actually say and believe.

I read Arabic and follow many Arab blogs. Let me assure you that what one encounters there will never be taken seriously or reported honestly by the NYT and CBS. Nor will the real opinions of the "Arab Street" appear there. The occasional reporter who pontificates on the issue carefully filters and rewords what he hears as perfectly rational opinions, capable of being engaged reasonably. The conspiracy theories that dominate public and coffee house discourse throughout the Middle East (where I've spent many happy years of my life) are not. Why should we expect fairness and accuracy when it comes to Bush or the American military?

madprof44 on May 11, 2009 @ 1:53:00 AM

I've never voted for Bush, but nonetheless respect the man and the office. I doubt that history will be as unkind to him as the media have been. Even from this liberal Democrat's perspective much of the coverage was demonstrably disgraceful.

But what I really want to comment on is Feherty: had he written "If Bush could avoid the hordes of Muslims in the neighborhood contemplating suicide bombing" he'd be out of his job tomorrow morning. If CBS responds at all - my guess is that it will not (again, quite in contrast to how it would respond to criticism from CAIR), but if they do they'll make it a free speech issue and demonize their critics. After all they've been doing it for years.

The Secret Service on the case? No, clearly protected speech, just as a novel that fantasizes the assassination of a President is.

There seems to have been a revolution in the composition of the editorial staffs of the major media since Time named the American Soldier its Person of the year. Slurs such as this one have become so casual that I doubt any of them have noticed how far they've drifted Conversely, the Western Media will never report what Islamist extremist groups actually say and believe.

I read Arabic and follow many Arab blogs. Let me assure you that what one encounters there will never be taken seriously or reported honestly by the NYT and CBS. Nor will the real opinions of the "Arab Street" appear there. The occasional reporter who pontificates on the issue carefully filters and rewords what he hears as perfectly rational opinions, capable of being engaged reasonably. The conspiracy theories that dominate public and coffee house discourse throughout the Middle East (where I've spent many happy years of my life) are not. Why should we expect fairness and accuracy when it comes to Bush or the American military?

BIG ONE on May 10, 2009 @ 7:59:00 AM

What an idiot David Feherty is and clearly not shy about showing it. He and others that still hang on to the pipe dream that W. is popular in any country or culture are clearly drinking too much of the Kool-aid that Hannity and Limbaugh are mixing up. It is amazing that this group of people can support a moron "puppet" like W., allow a lying warmonger like Cheney to run everything, and as if by thinking so or by repeating it enough times, people will forget about the disasters that were put upon our country and the destruction of our image around the world. Nice try but no chance.... The American people are many things including resilient but over a thousand lifetimes will never forget how horrible the Bush Administration was. Clearly the worst presidency ever. At least they were the very best at that!!

HeartlandLiberal on May 10, 2009 @ 7:19:00 AM

I will just share my note to CBS Sports. The thought applies of course to D Magazine for publishing this idiots immoral and in fact illegal blather:

You must be real Americans there at CBS. After all, only a truly patriotic news organization like yours would support a writer who makes a suggestion like this:

"if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry

Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

I am sure you have rewarded David Feherty amply for this suggestion, published in D Magazine, by promising him even more air and print time to express these patriotic and stirring views.

But why stop there? I mean why bother, as is the case in Texas, D Magazine's home, to secede from the union when it is clear that if enough red-blooded American pick up guns and start assassinating the elected

officials they disagree with, they can get us back to the core family values we all love? Heck, why stop with guns? When I grew up in Alabama, lynchings were still all the rage. Maybe you could front page some suggestions there, too.

Keep up the good work CBS (and D Magazine). Keep those patriotic values going. I knew you could do it.

(Actually, I hope the Secret Service shows up and hauls Mr. Feherty off to jail, and charges him with what he has clearly done, advocate the assassination of elected officials, which I am pretty sure is a damned serious felony.)

SteveG on May 10, 2009 @ 6:22:00 AM

I'm sure Feherty's comment was "just a joke," but could someone help me figure it out? I'm not sure if the funny part is the slandering of all members of the military as would-be assassins, or is it the violent murder of American politicians.

OK, actually, whatever he thought was supposed to be amusing about the comment, I don't care. It's a disgusting, un-American, ugly and frankly idiotic thing to say.

ZEviLL on May 10, 2009 @ 1:19:00 AM

I can only hope that the Secret Service will pay Mr. Feherty a visit to determine his true intentions. Obvious joke or not is not for us to decide, no one has the right to make such a violent threat against any citizen much less public officials.

I don't think it is even an issue of whether he is fired from CBS. That job is gone.

Whether he will be arrested and deported should be much more of a concern for him.

I always liked him as an announcer and I am far from a liberal, but, that type of language is so hateful and repulsive that I believe he has lost his privilege to stay in this country. It is not about free speech, it is about making blatant and dangerous threats against those he disagrees with.

L8nitedave on May 09, 2009 @ 5:11:00 PM

Gee, imagine that, a Park Cities golf snob talking about what a real life service man thinks. Yep, you and Dubya will make great buddies with the through the letter slot view of life you both share. "Now watch me hit this drive"

snookie on May 09, 2009 @ 11:01:00 AM

David Feherty you should stick to Golf although any magazine or TV studio that you work for should fire you immediately. You know NOTHING about members of the American military just because you did the iraq dog and pony show for idiots like you. I am a longtime member of the U.S. Marine Corps with multiple combat tours and combat injuries not some ice cream eating wanna be sitting in the green zone. I respect Pelosi, Reid, and especially Obama far more than the incompetent lying chickenawk Bush scumbag Bush who is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in a war based on lies and deceit. Now that he is no longer Commander in Chief I can finally say that as well as that Bush, Cheney, and the rest of their chickenhawk pond scum enablers should be tried for violating the constitution, their oath of office, and treason. You are a fool and an ass.

DalTexNative on May 09, 2009 @ 9:02:00 AM

I guess I missed something in Feherty's article, namely that he advocated assassinating Pelosi and Reid. It is obvious from the comments above that most hate GW Bush and do not want any comment about Bush to be positive. But at least be honest. Feherty's comments, on balance, were not positive about Bush. For that you all should be pleased. Why should it be wrong to express observations based on his experiences in visiting troops in the Middle East? Did Feherty advocate the deaths of people he disagreed with as TomYossarianJoad claimed? Not in the article on this page. Did he invite service members to assassinate members of Congress as geordie stated? Guess I missed that one too. I also missed the comment RalphKramden penned suggesting that Feherty said being a member of the armed forces makes you a murderer. By far the funniest comment was by mj. He said Obama was not running against Bush in the last election. I'm not sure what planet he was on during the election, but GW Bush is precisely who Obama was running against. Get over your hatred for George W. Bush. You may not like the fact that he is back living in Dallas. Too bad. Be thankful you can share your comments knowing you can do so freely.

Ignatz on May 08, 2009 @ 6:20:00 PM

Astonishing. Are you actually claiming that all American soldiers are looking for an excuse to assassinate a Senator?

What a disgraceful sentiment.

Not only is it obviously false, but you just defamed our troops by imputing your own sick, violent fantasies to THEM.

Disgusting.

Rich2506 on May 08, 2009 @ 6:13:00 PM

"Last time i checked, obama wasn't running against bush in the last election" Uh mj, were you not aware that the ad Obama was running against McCain in the last few weeks of the election brought up the scary, scary spectre of the first term of McCain being a third term of Bush? Yes, Obama WAS "running against Bush" and quite successfully, too!

I found the first paragraph of the Feherty piece amusing because I also saw a piece where the Bush people were all congratulating themselves for having survived such a rough eight years. They listed five major disasters. Um, ALL of these disasters occured due to their dereliction of duty or incompetence or malice. NONE of them "just occurred."

As to Clinton vs Bush and responsibility for 9-11, if the Soviet Union had invaded Western Europe in September 1981, Ronald Reagan would have been entirely justified in claiming "Hey, I saw the problem (Jimmy Carter wasn't spending enough on the military) and I was actively trying to fix it!" Reagan was indeed trying to fix what he saw as a problem, Bush can't claim anything of the sort. Bush wasn't caught "flat-footed," he had his feet up on the desk and was snoozing!

bwunderlick on May 08, 2009 @ 4:54:00 PM

Referring to our military as irrational murders who want to kill our elected officials is pretty bad, but I wanted to comment on Allison's claim Bush is popular in India because it's just wrong. The reasons stated make little sense because 1. the taliban wasn't destroyed and is threatening right now to come back into power, 2. the nuclear deal was so controversial it nearly brought down the Indian government and 3. a personal visit? Clinton's post-presidential visit to the reconstruction following the 2000 quake is remembered more fondly than Bush's trip! These are all minor reasons compared to the real cause for Bush's unpopularity in India: the US unquestioning support of Pakistan under Bush and the billions we gave the Pakistan military! India was more influenced by Moscow during the Cold War because in part of the close US-Pakistan military ties, which were ramped up post 9/11, not because they were "anti-West". To not even mention this dynamic shows a real lack of knowledge. Then again, what's the whole point of this vis via Dallas? Do you really think Indians (and not Indian-Americans) are going to run to Dallas to hang out with an unpopular former US president? I guess crazier things have happened...

mj on May 08, 2009 @ 4:35:00 PM

For the most part, you previous commenters are absolute morons. Have you ever seen writing before? He wasn't suggesting people should kill politicians, he was suggesting that our troops can see reid and pelosi for what they are...politicians who care about themselves...the point being that bush cared about the country. Get your heads out of your asses. Also, you mention is disgusting to assassinate people we disagree with politically yet...i'm pretty sure we disagree politically with osama bin laden, and none of you mentioned his name. So yossarian, would it be next to treason to assassinate osama bin laden?

@tke919, i don't even know where to begin with you. You're so misguided it borders on hilarity. Last time i checked, obama wasn't running against bush in the last election, so your stat on troop donations means absolutely nothing. Yes, bush was president on 9/11, yet how many times did clinton have the chance to do something about osama, and didn't? Why was our military in such a relaxed and giant state of drawdown? OH yea, happened to be because of that clinton guy. And i'd say keeping us safe for seven years was a pretty big accomplishment, considering that 17 terrorist acts occurred against americans, yes, 17, during the 8 year term of bill clinton. Also, you clearly aren't informed if you're going to blame the economy on george bush. And to blame the environment and other things on him? All i can see you as is a brainwashed msnbc watcher who hasn't done any real research on any pertinent facts.

The rest of you need to take a deep breath and pull out whatever is stuck up your behinds. Learn that sometimes, when people write, they use literary tactics and devices. I'm surprised none of you ripped feherty's head off for claiming that it was impossible for reid, pelosi, and osama to ever be in an elevator together.

Good article david. There are some of us out there that get it.

tke919 on May 08, 2009 @ 3:13:00 PM

Um ... David, your experiences with our service members are apparently limited. I work with them each and every day, and am pretty sure I've talked to hundreds more of them than you have.

But, unlike you, I don't dare lump them all into some monolithic block whose opinions can be divined by talking a few out of 2 million. Instead, I live in a reality in which members of the Armed Forces donated to Obama by a 6 to 1 margin. And, like an overwhelming majority of Americans, they really don't give a damn about Pelosi or Reid.

Also, I find this so disingenuous as to be pathetic:

"The fact is, Americans in America have been safe since 9/11 ... "

Two things:

1. Last I checked, Bush was, in fact, President on 9/11. Yet so many seem willing to let him off the hook for his failure leading up to that day. Why?

2. You forgot the people who died of Anthrax in late 2001. When that's factored in, he actually did a crappy job of keeping us safe.

What's so ... disgusting, however, is this notion you and others have about what constitutes "safe." According you, if we let slide the warnings Bush ignored (the memo "Bin Laden determined to strike U.S." comes to mind) and cast aside the more than 3,000 people who died on 9/11, Bush did a bang-up job keeping us safe.

Really?

Listen, is the guy as bad as he's been made out to be by some? Oh heck no. In fact, I'd probably enjoy just hanging out with the guy some time. I really would.

But as a leader, he was a failure. Period.

The economy, the environment, national security, energy policy, science, education ... in every area, we are worse off as a nation than before he was elected.

No spin, no willful ignoring of the facts, and no "but he's so nice!" articles will change that basic fact.

RalphKramden on May 08, 2009 @ 2:54:00 PM

"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi....Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice..."

So what you're saying is being a member of the armed forces makes you a murderer? I hope you lose your job over such a slimy sentiment.

geordie on May 08, 2009 @ 2:36:00 PM

Feherty, I used to enjoy your work on golf broadcasts. No more. You're an idiot and this language is not funny, it's not clever, it's close to incitement to treason, as the previous commenter said. I'll be contacting CBS Sports to suggest you "explain" on the air your comments that seem to invite service members to assassinate members of Congress - contrary to your evident belief, Democrats watch golf and Democrats love their country. You're an idiot at best here.

TomYossarianJoad on May 08, 2009 @ 2:00:00 PM

You write:

"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi....Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice..."

That is some kind of sick, dude. Advocating the deaths of people who you disagree with politically, whichever party you belong to, is next door to treason in my opinion.