Today, however, especially in the midst of the exciting political contest, it truly does appear that this God gap is beginning to narrow, as more and more people of faith seem to allow themselves to be swayed by the media, pop culture and, yes, peer pressure (apparently we didn’t learn the whole “just say no” thing quite well enough in school).  Many republicans, some of them good religious conservatives, have begun to take a good, honest look at what the democrats might have to offer.

And on the surface, of course, there is a great deal there which seems very attractive to the religious.

The Obama campaign, specifically, has been trumpeting a message of “change,” of “honesty,” and of “integrity” from one corner of the nation to the other.  He has been packing stadiums full of enthusiastic young people who believe every word from his mouth with just as much fervor and intensity as they decry every word from the much-maligned current President.

To a religious person, isn’t Barack Obama exactly what this country needs to give it the moral high ground?  Jesus taught the importance of integrity, honesty and peace, just like Barack, didn’t he?  Jesus wanted us all to stop fighting and get along, did he not?  Jesus wanted us to care for the sick (socialized healthcare anyone?), to feed the hungry (homeless advocacy laws?) and to help the poor (limitless welfare?).  Isn’t the Democratic party more aligned with the teachings of religion than the Republican party?

This is precisely the obstacle faced by we religious conservatives who know better – who can see through the mask of Obama’s “truthful” and “messianic” pretense, as well as that of the Democratic party as a whole.

Now, the question that must be answered is this:  Why do so many Republicans think that theirs is the right party for people of faith?  Can’t someone be religious and be a Democrat?  Isn’t it both judgmental and naïve to believe that the conservative party alone may carry the torch of true religion?

The answers come quickly: Because it is.  Yes.  Perhaps.

The first question is the most important.

While it is true that the Bible – and the teachings of other major religions – teach us to help each other, I do not believe that by giving full responsibility in this task to the government we are doing justice to the “spirit” of the law.  We are not called to let someone else help the needy for us, we are supposed to do it ourselves.

Being a democrat and watching the government choose where it reapportions the massive amounts of wealth that it takes from you every year should be no replacement for helping others ourselves, yet to Democrats, this is what it has become.  The increase in welfare in this country has served as a sort of "out" for those who in their hearts want to help others, but don't actually want to make the effort to do it themselves.  Voting democratic has been, to some, a salve to ease the conscience regarding cheritable giving.

Republicans (where there is a far greater majority of self-proclaimed people of faith) seem to have a better understanding of what "charity" really means (though we are in no way perfect in this sense).  We understand that to help the poor and the helpless we alone are the answer, not a bigger government.  George Will of the Washington Post wrote an excellent article detailing the statistics regarding just how much more Republicans give to charity than Democrats (even despite the fact that Democrats, on average, are wealthier).  This must-read article can be found here: http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/551172.html

So both parties give to the poor, so aren't both sides right?

• First, personal charitable donations can be chosen and given very deliberately to the most important or needy charities (as seen from the perspective of each individual). 
• Second, billions of dollars every year are not lost on government expenses before it ever arrives to those in need. 
• Third, private organizations are unbelievably more efficient than any government program, which any economist can tell you is a good thing.  And when the market is allowed into the charity arena, even greater efficiency can be obtained.
• Fourth, a religious person tends to want to give their money to organizations which possess a philosophy that matches up with their own.  Most Republicans would never willingly donate money to planned parenthood or a needle exchange program in the name of charity.  But when it is the government saying where the charitable donations go, you can be sure that the recipients are not going to necessarily be the ones that you would choose.

Yes, you read that right.  And no I am not being facetious or playing some tricky word game with you.

For perhaps the first time in this entire campaign season, I have found an actual issue on which Barack Obama and I can agree!  Can you believe it? 

(go ahead and skip this next paragraph if you don’t want to hear what I have against Barack, but would rather just learn where we agree)

Now of course it’s not enough to make me vote for him or anything - after all, it’s hard for one issue to drown out all the other places the two of us disagree - my belief in the power of people vs. his belief in the power of government, my belief that people should be encouraged to work hard vs. his belief that the government should reward the lazy, my ability to understand the way the world actually works vs. his belief that even the worst people in this world should be given a diplomatic hug, my respect for human life vs. his belief in abortion (of all types), my belief that there is no place in this nation for deranged, racist, manipulative preachers vs. his belief that they should be given a pass.

I could, obviously, go on.

But that’s not the point here.  The point is that we’ve found some middle ground.  Yesterday, Barack announced that if he was elected, he would "seriously consider" getting rid of the penny.

Was he serious?  I really don’t care, because I’m fairly confident that he’ll lose the general election, but it’s still a noble sentiment.

Is it a big deal, though?  Kind of, yes.  After all, it costs far more to make pennies than they are actually worth, which means that the Treasury Department wastes millions (perhaps more) every year just to make these little things that we don’t really care about in the first place.  We could save them in a jar, saying to ourselves (it’s surprising how quickly these things add up), but then when that huge jar is full and we take it into the bank, we are equally surprised to learn that we did all that work for a lousy $7.

So I applaude you, Barack Obama, for having the courage to buck tradition and to take a stand against the worthless penny (even though the fact that it still exists has surely got something to do with the lobbying of your home state of Illinois, so proud are they of their Lincoln).

You won’t get my vote (nor will you get the vote of the silent majority who know better in this country), but you made me smile today.

Now... John McCain, if you’re reading this (you know you are), what say you about the penny?  Will you stand with me to fight against what quite nearly amounts to a treasury department version of pork barrel spending? 

Make it happen, gents.  Make it happen.

Conservatives (such as myself) don't seem to have courage anymore.  So constantly surrounded are we by the loud, obnoxious ranting of the "Bush haters" that we tend to shrink back into the corners and mock them silently and from a distance.

"Don't they realize the absurdity of their arguments?" we ask ourselves, but never out loud.  We go out of our way to avoid direct arguments, partially because we might want to avoid conflict, partially because we may not feel enough informed, but mostly because we're afraid of these people.  Seriously, if you're a hardcore Democrat and hate the President – good for you – but you scare us a little with all of your talk of warmongering, lying and people-needing-to-be-impeached.  I guess it works well for you, because liberal democrats end up being the lone voice in society… but it's kind of unfair. 

Just calm down for a second, seriously, and read on as I do what I probably should have done more frequently over the past few years – to break the conservative silence and defend George W.  A voice, crying in the wilderness.

To some, this may seem to be a bit of a "too little too late" sort of situation.  President Bush is a lost cause.

After all, if I was going to defend the President of the United States, why hadn't didn't I do so a year ago, or two years ago.  Where was I when his approval rating started to plummet?

To be honest, I was in a sense somewhere hiding with all the rest of my conservative brethren.  While I never lost faith fully in our President, and I certainly never abandoned my conservative principles, I have in the past possessed my own share of doubts about President Bush.  After all, if the whole country seems to be in a state of almost universal condemnation of a single person, there has to be something to it, does there not?  After all (and this has been my biggest point of contention with the President), why has he not been defending himself and his courses of action?  I was behind him in many of his decisions, which were so obviously the right ones – why was he not explaining that to the rest of the country?

To that last question, I still do not have an entirely satisfactory answer – but at the moment, this is neither here nor there. 

First off, it's a misconception in the first place to think that the entire nation is in condemnation of the President.  He still has his fans – and many of those who understand the fundamental issues of economics, of world affairs, of social issues, and of history, have stuck by him throughout the past seven years, difficult as they may have been.

The fact of the matter is (and I think even the most ardent liberal among you has no choice but to agree with this), the true question which will be judged by history is not whether the President finds success in convincing others that he's right; the true question is whether or not he is right.  The question is not how high his approval ratings were, but rather how his decisions affect the nation he serves in both a short and long term basis. 

It all comes down, I think, to the fact that We the People do not, and will not, know everything.  We do not, in fact, know much at all regarding what goes on behind the closed doors of the white house or the CIA or any of the branches of the Military (nor should we).  We have no idea the amount of thought that gets put into each decision, the sheer number of different perspectives weighing in on each individual issue, the extreme political pressure, both foreign and domestic, weighing on every word coming out of the president's mouth… we must resign ourselves at the moment to ignorance.

And this, if I must necessarily have one, is my thesis.  Though the American public may, in a majority sense, feel negatively toward the policies (and yes, sadly, even the person) of George W. Bush, it is my firm belief that the only true judge of a president is history itself – and I, as a student of history and of the nuances of modern politics, am confident that history will judge President Bush kindly.  Furthermore, I predict (with good reason) that within twenty years of the end of his reign (it may take longer and it may happen sooner, but I must at least make an attempt at an exact number), George W. Bush will be seen not as a failure; not as a warmonger; not as an uneducated dullard; but instead as a great, or near-great president for conservatives, like Reagan and Eisenhower before him.

I want this to be clear before I go any further toward establishing my argument:  I am writing this both to inform others, and to make sure that when this happens – when George W. Bush begins to rise in the ranks of public opinion – people know that I predicted it.  While everyone else was vying for the title for "most absurd and baseless accusation against a sitting President," I was looking at the bigger picture.  Time will vindicate me.  So, in essence, I'm writing this for my own glory.

Now, on with it (and I urge you to read this through to the end, because this is all very important).

I begin my case with an unlikely comparison between George W. Bush and one of my favorite Presidents of the 21^st Century, Harry S Truman.  The similarities between these two leaders are many, and to list them all would be the subject of an essay in itself (in fact, that was my original intention here, but I decided at the last minute that it would be more helpful for me to begin with an honest, sincere, and well-informed defense of the President). 

To summarize the political career of President Truman and show how it relates to our current President:

Truman was considered by many (if not most) to be an uneducated dullard, and one wholly unfit to be President of the United States.  In fact, I think history will back me up when I assert that, had Truman not been offered a position as Roosevelt's V.P., he never would have become President.  He was, to put it bluntly, unelectable.  He had been a relatively successful soldier during WWI, and a failed businessman after that, never having attained a college education (though he had completed two years toward a law degree).  In fact, during the majority of his life before finally becoming a judge in St. Louis, Harry S Truman was a mere farmer.  Not exactly the kind of credentials capable of getting one elected, especially not against such powerhouse candidates as Thomas Dewey of New York, Robert Taft of Ohio or any number of other candidates the Republicans could have run against him.

Truman, unlike President Bush, was thrown into the presidency against the will of most Americans, who would have voted for Roosevelt no matter who he had put on the ticket.

Also like President Bush, Truman's first year in the white house (after Roosevelt's death) was filled with the kinds of nation-shaping decisions that separate the weak leader from the strong.  Within months the farmer from Missouri was forced into making one of the most important decisions a President has ever been forced to make – the decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan to end World War II.  President Bush, similarly, was forced to lead the nation through a crisis not of his own making, and according to the vast majority of Americans, he did just that.

Over the next seven years of Truman's reign, he would be known by his fans as a "straight talker," and a man who stuck by his convictions, no matter how unpopular that made him.  To his opponents he was seen as an imbecile, a poor leader and a warmonger (sound familiar?).  His threats in 1946 and 1952 to nationalize certain labor unions in order to end strikes (the railroad and the steel workers, respectively) put him at odds with his own Democratic party, who had traditionally been friends of organized labor; and his decision to put troops on the ground in South Korea in 1950 in order to stop a North Korean invasion caused him no end of grief.

After Truman fired General Douglas McArthur in 1952, his approval among the American people dropped to a record low of 22% (compared to President Bush's ratings, which at the moment are hovering just over thirty percent).  Even the rating of President Nixon at the time of his resignation was higher (27%).

Looking at the history of the Korean War itself holds a key to understanding Bush's presidency in the context of history as well.   While those who don't know any better often find themselves comparing the current War in Iraq to the War in Vietnam, with any knowledge of history, one can easily see that the war can much more accurately be compared to Korea. 

Both wars began with resounding success – the "Shock and Awe" of Iraq, and the amphibious landing at the Battle of Inchon in Korea.  Both were seen as immediate paths to victory before unforeseen complications arose.  In Iraq there was clearly a misinterpretation of just how much resistance would pour into the fallen country from surrounding nations such as Syria and Iran (this much was quickly realized and admitted to by President Bush).  In Korea, we were not expecting the help given to the North Koreans from the Chinese, which drove our forces back across the border and created, effectively, a stalemate to finally end the war under Eisenhower.   

The War in Iraq, to many, appears headed in a similar, non-victorious direction.  It's not hard to see where this perspective comes from, and at one point it seemed to have some real merit.  However, to those who have been paying closer attention to this conflict beyond what the media outlets have been reporting, it is clear that the action never taken in Korea (and rightfully so, considering the situation) is, in fact, being undergone in Iraq and it is working beyond most of our greatest hopes.  After the troop surge (a strategy pushed most strongly by a now-famous senator from Arizona named John McCain) of the latter half of 2007, casualties are plummeting and security is better than ever.  We are heading toward victory in Iraq – so in that sense, the analogy between both Vietnam and Korea are somewhat faulty. 

Iraq is its own battle, and I believe history will give credit to victory in that front to George W. Bush, though what happens next in this war will depend upon the next President, and there is no doubt that both Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama are far more interested in telling the American people what they want to hear than in doing what is right, both to protect America and to give hope to those suffering from the tyranny of Middle East fundamentalist theocracies.  These democratic candidates want nothing more than to return America to that isolationism which preceded both world wars, and which prevented us from doing good in the world where it was necessary.

While his low approval rating may dog him at the moment and throughout his final year in office (though I predict that it will rise as success in Iraq continues, and perhaps as a bit of sanity begins to settle over our nation), this is in no way telling regarding the legacy that President Bush will leave. 

Back to Truman for a moment:

Despite his 22% approval rating, Truman today finds a home almost always in the top ten of any list of America's greatest presidents, averaging out at about 7.  President Bush, on the other hand, tends to come in somewhere in the low twenties – about dead center in the middle of the list (a fact which surely surprises those who believe a permanent place should be reserved for him at the bottom, right below Harding, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan and William Henry Harrison).  Public perception, in other words, is not always the most accurate test of a President's legacy.

I believe that George W. Bush will be recognized for his leadership, his commitment to stay the course in terms of conservative principles despite the venomous hatred aimed at him from all sides, and his unwavering commitment to his own values.

So for those out there who disagree, who think that President Bush has been a horrible President, I simply ask you why.  Where am I wrong in my logic?  And to take this even a step further, for those of you who believe that Bush is a criminal who should be either impeached or imprisoned, please explain this to me as well.  I have been looking into it, but I haven't found a single argument that doesn't stem directly from some kind of irrational, personal hatred.

The truth of the matter is there for anyone with historical perspective to plainly see; there is very little that George Bush has done which is without historical precedent (again, despite what his critics would have you believe).  His narrow victory in 2000 and disputed returns in Florida?  Take a look at the election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson in 1824 and you'll see that the 2000 election was child's play as far as controversy goes.  Upset about President Bush's lack of a declaration of war upon entering Iraq?  There have been at least 125 such "undeclared" conflicts in our nation's history (including Truman's Korean War).  Think the President was wrong to "take away civil liberties" with his surveillance of possible terrorists and his suspension of habeas corpus?  Take a look at John Adams' equally unpopular "Alien and Sedition Acts;" and while you're at it, look up how Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War and enacted sedition laws.  Think President Bush is stupid and unfit to be President?  Truman, as I mentioned, never graduated college, much like George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson or Grover Cleveland. 

President Bush got his bachelor's degree from Yale and his MBA from Harvard business school – something never mentioned by those who challenge his intelligence in governing.  Claiming that The President is stupid is bordering on delusional. 

Most of the accusations against The President seem for the most part to be entirely baseless and without factual merit (unless one is willing to twist and distort facts), propagated by the media and the internet to such an extent as has never been possible before in our nation's history.  Had the Presidency of George W. Bush taken place just twenty years ago, I believe he would have been seen in a very different light (in fact, I don't know that Reagan would fare much better were he president in today's society of instant information).

To conclude (finally):

We all need to take a deep breath, relax for a minute (or however long it takes to return you to sanity), and then stop and ask ourselves why we really don't like the President.  Then we need to do ourselves a favor and look into the facts of the matter, a path which must necessarily include looking into views that disagree with your own.  Surround yourself with people who disagree with you, and either you will be eventually persuaded to a different point of view, or your own will have been tested, sharpened and refined by the assault.

And lastly, let's learn to be a little bit more respectful.  George W. Bush is your president and mine (unless you live in another country, in which case there's nothing I can do for you), and for that reason alone he deserves a little respect.  Listening to the radio this morning I heard more than one commentator (supposedly non-partisan) refer to him as Mr. Bush.  I couldn't help but cringe at this childish lack of common courtesy – he is President Bush, and should be referred to as such.  If you have an argument to make against his policies, that's perfectly fine, but be a grownup about it (unless you are not a grownup, in which case you can behave however you want).  At least then I'll be able to start taking your arguments seriously again.

This is my plea to America. 

Give it a little bit of time and in twenty years you just may owe George W. Bush an apology.