George W. Bush obtained the presidency with the expectation that he would have the opportunity to reform education and strengthen the economy. Instead, the events on September 11th thrust him into a presidency primarily dealing with foreign affairs. Unlike his father, who was director of the CIA prior to being president, Bush 43 had no experience dealing with American diplomacy. The spike of nationalism that transpired in American culture following the attacks created a nearly universal sense that something must be done about Islamic radicalism. The nationalism that propelled the United States into a global war on terror was a side effect of the concept of American exceptionalism that many citizens hold to be true. This is evident in the rhetoric that Bush and other leaders, as well as the media, used in the post 9/11 era. Though many of the decisions Bush made in office are now seen as tragic, the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum erases the farces of his presidency, while focusing on the idea of American exceptionalism to justify those decisions.
When observing the financial situation that is necessary to create a presidential museum, it is not difficult to understand why George Bush is painted in such a flattering way. A small portion of the funds come from taxes, but the majority of the money is given by people who believe Bush was a great president. These are people who, like Bush, have a strong belief in the notion of American exceptionalism. Rather than the subjective picture of his presidency being intentionally disingenuous, it is likely that it is the way Bush and his supporters actually see his presidency and the global war on terror. To any person willing to be critical of the decisions that propelled the United States into a single-handed decades-long war against an ideology, the museum comes off as misleading and a denial of the true nature of the United States’ global war on terror, especially the Iraq War.
Before presenting visitors with the United States’ war on terror, the museum cleverly evokes empathy for Bush as a person and leader. The hallway that introduces the exhibit portrays Bush’s upcoming as both modest and inspirational to his character as leader. It describes the love he has for his family and the conservative values of hard work, patriotism, and neighborly love attributed to any white suburban family in the 40s and 50s. Next is Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation. Though controversial, it is portrayed as one of Bush’s most prominent successes. It also effectively places visitors in a position of compassion for children and their importance in the future of the United States.
When one turns around after viewing this shrine to America’s children, complete with a cute miniature school bus for kids to sit in, they are confronted with an ominous circular room with low lighting. In the center are two beams, twisted and mangled, pulled directly from ground zero. They serve as a morbid center piece, with most of the lighting focusing on them. Along the walls of the room are four televisions embedded in the wall, covering each tower, the pentagon, and United Airlines flight 93. They depict the impact of each plane, the urgency and anxiety that filled every news organization’s coverage, and the tearful reactions of New Yorkers watching it unfold. Even as a person critical of the justifications 9/11 gave to irrational and impulsive diplomatic decisions, this section of the exhibit effectively recreates the mood felt during 9/11 and the days that followed. I was filled with combined feelings of anxiousness, sadness, resentment, and even a desire for retribution. Of course these feelings are justified for any American experiencing a recreation of that day’s events. However, the sensational depiction of them serves the same purpose in the museum as it did in the post 9/11 Bush presidency.
Following this section is a timeline of Bush’s actions in the following days, ending with a quote by Bush in 2006 invoking Alexis de Tocqueville “[who] saw that the secret to America’s success was… our willingness to serve a cause greater than self.”[1] This idea is much more apparent today than in the 1830s. When applying it to the United States’ actions in the war on terror, it becomes almost comical considering much of the results achieved have been self-serving. Next is an enormous global map labeled “Fighting the Global War.” The map illustrates Afghanistan and Iraq in red, “state sponsors of terrorism” in orange, labels nuclear threats, terrorist attacks, and prevented terrorist attacks. The problem is that it depicts terrorism as a unified movement rather than a complex, disorganized, and scattered culmination of extreme ideologies. Littering an entire section of the globe with red and orange caution signs places blame on millions of people who instead of participating in the violent response to westernism and globalization, live normal lives. Most are not wearing masks and carrying AK-47s. They are going to work every day to support their families, participating in their communities, and cooking supper while their children play with their friends. All of this while dealing with the minority of extremists that plague their states with disorder and violence.
Once reaching the map, the left side of the hallway opens up into the rest of the exhibit. In this section, one is allowed to move freely and observe the individual displays in whichever order they please. At this point the museum has effectively built the visitors empathy, disheartened them, pin-pointed the enemy, and created the justification for a global war on terror. This section, which outlines the war during Bush’s presidency, attributes his administration with spreading democracy, and especially “the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.” One wall in particular portrays an assortment of justifications, as well as exaltations of freedom, peace, free trade, and democracy. Several quotes from Bush appear on the wall including “the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world,” and “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.” These summarize Bush’s attitude throughout the war; a common belief most clearly traced back to Wilson’s “make the world safe for democracy” speech. [2] They believed that the spread of democracy and free trade equates to prosperity and liberty in America.
In a statement of denial or pure naivety, a panel expresses one part of Bush’s freedom agenda as the attempt to “Expand Free Trade to bring people out of poverty and to undercut the despair that fuels extremism.” However, the United States’ attempt at globalizing a free trade market is precisely what led to extremist backlash, and continues to do so, not “poverty and despair.” This is apparent in Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwā entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” [3] His initial reason to declare Jihad was the United States’ occupation in the Islamic world —which existed for the purposes of protecting free trade. Post 9/11 extremists are motivated by what, to them, is a forceful and violent attempt at spreading Western values that are at odds with their ideological conservatism. For years the United States has fought to keep the world open for free trade. The result is often the exploitation of citizens and resources, all for the economic interests of United States’ businesses. But when it comes to American interests in the Middle East, the resistance is religious and ideological. This creates opposition far more meaningful to those fighting to resist. The Bush administration’s belief that introducing more of what caused the problem in the first place is the solution serves as a testament to why Iraq was such a farce.
An interactive globe presented in the exhibit highlights the democratic states of the world over a period of fifty-eight years. For 2008 it lists 121 democratic nations (including Iraq and Afghanistan). Defining democratic states however, is more complicated than drawing a line. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2008 illustrates this by ordering democratic nations in a particular order based on categories that that characterize democracies. [4] Additionally, it places proposed democratic nations into four types of regimes: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. In this more realistic definition Afghanistan ranks at 138, and Iraq at 116. This positions Iraq in the last state considered a hybrid regime, and Afghanistan as an authoritarian regime. Furthermore, though the Bush Museum categorizes Iraq at the end of Bush’s presidency as “able to govern, defend, and to sustain itself,” the EIU’s index gives Iraq a .07 out of 10 on “Functioning of government,” far behind every other nation listed. The effort to illustrate the Bush administration as effectively spreading democratic values to the nations where it concentrated all of its efforts is a reflection of its notion of American exceptionalism. If America is exceptional because it is willing to spread democracy, liberty, and prosperity, as well as challenge anything that opposes those standards, than the global war on terror — which was justified on this effort and the United States’ obligation to fulfill it — must have resulted in the triumph of the United States’ determination.
Observing the Bush Museum from a more critical perspective exposes the denial of the United States’ true characteristics in the global war on terror. Considering the same disingenuous justifications present during the Bush administration are also present throughout the exhibit, perhaps the museum is a more accurate depiction of Bush’s term than regularly considered. Bush used the United States’ notion of American exceptionalism — which was stronger than ever post 9/11 — to propel the country into two wars. Involving the United States in decades of combat, the disruption of an already tumultuous region of the world, wasting trillions of dollars, and causing the deaths of nearly 7,000 American soldiers, somehow only strengthens the cause for some. For them, it is the United States’ obligation to spread its ideals that make it exceptional. Though it undermines true American values, (actually established in the Bill of Rights) the Bush administration detaining and torturing prisoners without trial was even justified by the same people that cry for preserving the constitution. For others, like me, justifying the means of war on the United States so-called obligation to spread its values, when the attempted spread of those values is the primary reason conflict exists in the first place, comes off as absurd. If anything is exceptional about the United States it is its ability to sometimes perceive its actions exactly opposite of what they truly are. When the liberation of other states fails, but the economic interests succeeds, the action is not seen as a farce, but an ongoing struggle to free the world of structures that oppose everything that makes the United States exceptional.
- From the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas, Texas. All quotations were observed on November 1, 2014.
- From speech given by Woodrow Wilson on April 2, 1917. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/
- Bin Laden, Osama, “Declaration of War against American Occupying the Two Holy Places,” August 1996, PBS News Hour, retrieved 10 November 2014. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec96-fatwa_1996/
Im in college and this blog is neccessary 