WASHINGTON -- In keeping with many American journalists' evasion of meaning, Time magazine has given its "Person of the Year" not to a person but to a group of persons, or is it to a person who has no name? "The American Soldier" is Time's "Person of the Year." That represents a very fine sentiment. The American military once again deserves the citizenry's highest esteem, but the American military is not a person. I am glad that I am not an editor at Time. Had I been one, I would have argued that the magazine celebrate our soldiers, sailors and pilots. Moreover, I would have thrown in those duty-bound intelligence operatives who play such an important role in American security, but I would not give the "Person of the Year" accolade to a non-person.
As it happens, I am an editor. In fact, I am an editor in chief, and as editor in chief of The American Spectator, I am affirming that the magazine this year take up the burden of conferring a "Person of the Year" accolade on an actual person, President George W. Bush. He has shown himself to be a president of colossal achievement. He has faced up to international terrorism. If an earlier president had, America might not be remembering September 11, 2001, as another "date which will live in infamy." A rather good book by Richard Miniter, "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," irrefragably makes the case that America did not have to await Osama bin Laden's slaughter to take on the terrorists.
President Bush faced up to his responsibilities. He adopted a clear-sighted strategic demarche to deal with the terrorists' new threat to America, the doctrine of preemption. And he very successfully waged war in two rogue nations, thus sobering up a region that has been the breeding ground for terrorists. Libya's sudden willingness to give up its, Iran's and North Korea's weapons of mass destruction now under its control makes it clear that the Bush policy has been prudent.
President Bush has also revived an economy that was in decline when he arrived in office. In doing so, he has demonstrated that the policies of supply-side used so effectively by President Ronald Reagan are the modern way to ensure a prosperous economy. Detracting from the president's success in reviving the economy is the lavish government spending that is a threat to stable economic growth and the Medicare prescription drug bill that is going to be far costlier than Congress predicts. Well, perhaps the president can rectify these matters in the years ahead.