If there was any doubt that George W. Bush is bound for the sad little cupboard of American history to which we consign our ineffective or incompetent presidents–our Tafts, Hoovers, and Carters–where future generations can regard them with a mixture of bemusement and pity–it has been removed with his mishandling of the current financial crises.   In our present time of unique crisis, in which the president ought to play a unique role, the man has let us down again.

That’s not to say that he bears any mentionable share of the blame for the current situation.  In a few short weeks, the chickens have come home to roost on more than a decade of poor judgment and recklessness, growing from the poisonous root of government regulations that demanded–like Kruschev pounding his shoe–that race and class, not financial ability and credit history, should determine which individuals are worthwhile credit risks for mortgages.

The steps from there were not long or many until millions of Americans who, for good reason, would never have otherwise been homeowners, had seized monies they could never, and never intended, to pay back.  After all, the value of real property would always increase, so you could always sell it for more than you bought it for, and pay off the debt that way.  This unique brand of wishful blindness afflicted not just individuals, but lenders, investment bankers, and sophisticated purchasers of securities, who bundled these mortgages and bought and sold them until they infected the world economy.  In the prescient words of Warren Buffett, we had set loose weapons of economic mass destruction.

When these ‘bombs’ finally went off,  the damage was done so rapidly that it was easy to forget that it was 16 years in the making.  Bank after bank went under, followed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and AIG–who had agreed to insure a lot of the mess–as, almost overnight, the GAAP accounting rules required them to record massive ‘new’ debt on the books, rendering them insolvent.  The effect was worldwide.  The federal government announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “too big to fail.”  Fears grew that many foreign investors would dump American investments (putting a foot on the throat of the already-weak dollar) if AIG reneged on its insurance commitment to buyers of mortgage-backed securities.    A”bailout” of the better part of a trillion dollars was proposed, which appeared to many to be an unvarnished attempt by the government to nationalize the mortgage lending industry, and thus, to claim rights in a huge percentage of America’s real property.

In the midst of this crisis, a huge portion of the American people stood mute, frightened, and uncomprehending.  They didn’t know what it meant–what any of it meant–for themselves, their children, and their futures.  Would their savings still be in the bank tomorrow?  Most of us have only a thumbnail understanding of the problem and its causes, and little understanding at all of the proposed solutions and their consequences.  All we know is that we are staring into the face of a vast terror, and no one will deign to explain it to us.  And then we are asked to shoulder nearly a trillion dollars in additional tax burden, and no one will explain to what purpose, other than that it’s “neccesary” and “for our own good.”

This is the gap into which a good, competent president would step.  In addition to serving as an organizer and leader of the executive cogs of the federal government, and a motivator and provider of direction for the legislative, one of his most important roles is to step calmly to the presidential podium, and explain things to America.

A good president would explain the mess we’re in.  He’d explain how we got here.  He’d explain what the options are, and what solution he favored.  He’d explain the consequences of that solution.  And he’d do it clearly, honestly, and forthrightly, with the singular aim of helping America understand what it’s up against.

President Bush failed manifestly in this duty.  Yes, he ascended the podium and spoke.  But his speech, like so many he’d given before, merely told us to trust him whom we’ve already judged as untrustworthy to act in ways we couldn’t possibly understand for our own good.  When he finished speaking, the only information conveyed was that which we already knew–there’s a big problem, that’s likely to be countered with a drastic solution, and we’re all probably in a lot of trouble.  The monstrous dark of the crisis remained unilluminated, and the proposed government action remained–deliberately–inscrutable.

This, above all things, is a failure of leadership.