What is the Role of the American President?

Reading the interesting responses below, coupled with a long solitary walk, has triggered another topic of interest to me. Several months ago, I read the wonderful novel, The Plot Against America, by the brilliant American Jewish writer, Phillip Roth. In this book, Roth purposes the question, what if the anti-Semitic, isolationist, Charles Lindbergh, became President of the United States instead of Franklin D. Roosevelt? How would the country have developed, and sunk, if you will? This book is a must read, and will make many think about the state of politics in America today, and what could have been if the winds of history beared other colors.

George W. Bush is different from just about any other American president. His differences can be marked, at least to me, by his philosophy, his mannerisms, and his inability to represent and unite, the American people. What I have realized, is that the reason I find him so distasteful goes beyond the what he says. It is because he is not a President who represents the people of our country. Let us look at him. He comes from an extremely wealthy, powerful family, whose money is tied up to oil. So did many Presidents, you might claim, such as Kennedy himself. But Bush is quite different from Kennedy. As our President, Bush is most interested in being a representative of the group of people who share his philosophy and his wealth. This is most significantly demonstrated in his policies on tax cuts to the rich, the upper one percent of the population, those not representing America as a whole. Secondly, he is a president who has divided this country more than anyone else, which is most significantly reflected in the composition of his cabinet, only one Democrat, and the manner in which Republicans separate themselves from Democrats today. Watch him speak, and see that he gets right to the point, there are no social graces, or formalities about him. I could go on and on, speaking about his position on abortion, women's rights, gay rights, etc., but since I do not have the statistics before me on these issues, I will not give them much weight, nor conclude one way or the other, whether they reflect the beliefs of the majority of Americans today. Nixon, who was not a favorite of mine, did some good in my memory. He got rid of the draft, ended the war in Vietnam, and changed the gold standard. A saint, or at least an alter-boy by comparision!

As I look at Bush, I see a man who is leaving behind many or marks from his Presidency, just like every other president, although his droppings seem to be more penetrating an long-lasting from the war on Iraq, to the issue of WMD, to the Downing Street Memo (I have not forgotten), to Abu Ghrab, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, hurricane Katrina, the state of the economy and price of oil,FEMA and Mike Brown, and now the selection of Harriet Miers. These droppings, I am sure many will agree, will leave a large imprint on our country, and not necessarily one that will be positive or benefical either. The present state of our nation, time and history will bear that out in one form or another.

Here is the question of the day: to what extent, if any, should the American President represent the American people as a whole? Is it fair game for a sitting President to select people who agree with his personal and political philosophies, especially those who are supposed to be neutral, fair and impartial, and are going to represent the judiciary? Should it be the responsibility of a President to go beyond his personal beliefs and positions in making selections and implementation of ideas to reflect the majority or minority of people in this country? What legacy will George W. Bush leave behind for this country?

Have a good shabbos and a nice weekend.

Thank you for your minds.