The 41st President’s life is a display of service, diplomatic wit, and congeniality but mired by terrible social policies in the aftermath and midst of a changing Republican Party.

Nearly nine months after his wife Barbara’s passing, President George H.W. Bush, the 41st of the United States, died at the age of 94. Commemorations and sharp tongues have come out, as they did when Senator John McCain passed a short time ago. More so than McCain, however, Bush has his share of faults. I am here however, to acknowledge them, while also acknowledging some good which should not be forgotten.

Bush Sr. grew up privileged and aristocratic, in a political family on the centre or centre-right, which of course would be centre to centre-left in America today. His father was Prescott Bush, Republican U.S. Senator representing Connecticut, who got involved with the organization Planned Parenthood, the American Birth Control League (later merged with PP) (oh the disgust I felt when grandson Jeb torched Planned Parenthood and being pro-choice!) and the United Negro College Fund. Progressive Icon John Lindsay met his wife at George’s sister Nancy’s wedding where they were both involved with the ceremony. Safe to say that the Republicans were made of something a little different back then.

Bush was a War Hero turned Yale B.A. graduate, and ended up in Congress soon after, with stints as UN Ambassador, Liaison to the People’s Republic of China, GOP Chair, CIA Chief, and then Vice-President before becoming President himself. No matter what one thinks of the politics, that is, by all means, an incredible life well-lived, using his God-gifted privilege and opportunity to commit to public service. One may not agree with the outcomes, but Bush Sr. did what he believed was best for country, without necessarily offending, hurting, or destroying others. The intentions were noble and selfless.

Alas, despite strong leadership at the end of the Cold War, a consistent and stable temperament, and an America-flattering military performance in the First Gulf War, the economy had sank far too much, and Bush was probably punished for raising taxes (oh the horror!) as well as being unable to understand the struggles of the typical American. Bush was a foreign policy guru, a diplomat-turned-President who lived up to the hype, but faltered and lost to underdog Bill Clinton in 1992, with a significant disadvantage delivered by independent gadfly Ross Perot. Let it be a lesson that foreign policy cannot save a politician. For a one-term President however, Bush delivered a fine performance, and was known for being kind, gracious, and polite to those who had different political views. As a Democrat, let me say he is the kind of person I would want to face off against as a member of the opposition.

He could take a joke, and did not get offended or angry when he was parodied on SNL, in fact formed a friendship with Dale Carvey, the actor who portrayed him. The current President is clearly offended by Saturday Night Live, even barbing at Alec Baldwin on Twitter. Bush meanwhile, made an appearance on SNL after the Carvey portrayals, poking fun at the show and himself in a light-hearted way. Moments like that are what politics needs now more than ever. Both Barbara and George were also gracious and supportive of icon Barbra Streisand, although everyone knows she supports Democrats. Finally, Bush was also courteous and friendly to the Obama’s meanwhile his party and its pundits constantly attacked (and still attack) Barack and Michelle. He also disavowed the NRA in 1995. There is a certain irony in Donald Trump’s most stringent defenders coming out now and praising Bush 41 or First Lady Barbara Bush.

Despite the loss, H.W. and Bill would later become good friends, especially after the both were ex-Presidents, probably because both realized how lucky they both were to be in that position and knew few could understand it. When you are in a position of high leadership, one that few can obtain, whether its the head of state of a country or something far far smaller, a sense of familiarity and understanding should be there among those who have had the post, mutual respect in light of differences and performance level, because at the end of the day, power is a privilege and a call to duty, not a facetious competition or an excuse to outshine others. As a Professor from college, now growing to be a friend, told me recently, those with similar experiences, even through different ideologies and objectives, should find reason to become close to one another, not drift apart.

I pity those who have used whatever power they have obtained only to hold grudges, badmouth others long after the fact, and to seek a sense of grand-standing accomplishment and acceptance, all to zap away their deep insecurities like a tattoo gone-wrong many years later. All the while, the same individuals did not uphold the oath they swore on, while still having space in their incompetence-storing Pandora’s box to betray their own principles and virtues. Seeing this inconsistency in their initial logic is painful for one’s soul.

Luckily, none of that represents George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton. The jury will be out forever I suppose, but they were more than competent; they did their jobs. They knew service did not end after titles were relinquished, as they both did their part after the South Asian Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, to name a few. For this very reason, it is not that surprising that the Clinton-Bush friendship endured the test of time.

Unfortunately, Bush has more skeletons in his closet than John McCain does, as more power does often lead to sadly, more immoral corruption (if not literal). That being said, Bush pardoned those involved with Iran-Contra, which by all accounts, was a terrible act of corruption by those involved. Bush refused to apologize when American forces were forced to shoot down a commercial Iranian aircraft, killing everyone on board. Bush, a Republican of the old era I mentioned earlier, representing a far more moderate, socially liberal, intellectual, pro-civil rights, and often even egalitarian Republican Party (think Teddy Roosevelt or Ike Eisenhower), sold out and tagged along with President Ronald Reagan, who destroyed all of that and turned the modern-day GOP into an anti-science, anti-intellectual, and an anti anti-debt (essentially pro-debt) party. Reagan tore up Ike’s script on social programs and Social Security. The Reagans turned a blind eye to the crisis of AIDS in the 80’s, and I assume Bush did not fiercely object. Contrast that to how Joe Biden, also Vice President, broke with President Obama and came out supporting gay marriage. Bush was no schmuck, he could have done the same on HIV/AIDS. There is no record of him doing that.

Then came his own Presidential Campaign in 1988, where President Reagan would call Bush’s opponent Governor Michael Dukakis an “invalid” due to rumors regarding his past depression. Bush said nothing (that I know of, correct me if I am wrong). Bush brought along Lee Atwater to help win the campaign, who provenly spread these mental health rumors. Bush did not fire him, and let him continue his tricks and jabs, in what would eventually lead to Bush painting Dukakis as “soft on crime”, and Bush continued to support the death penalty, despite the Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp in 1987 that showed that white murderers were less likely to be given the death penalty and murderers as a whole were spared execution if the victims were non-white. All of this would lead allies to create the race-baiting “Willie Horton Ad”, which was full of inaccuracies but devastating to the Dukakis Campaign. Bush ran with the new anti-intellectualism of his Party, being a Yale man but decided to call Dukakis “Harvard Yard”, even though “Harvard Yard” was the home of Republican Presidents Rutherford B. Hayes and Theodore Roosevelt. The campaign was not as brutal and low as Trump in 2016, but it was certainly brutal. George and Barbara co-signed at every turn.

This is where I will admit that if I was of a developed political mind in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, I would probably be a Republican, like the Coopers and the Sterlings of Mad Men, pro-business (but not racist like them), and a fan of the Eisenhowers, Brownells, Bushes, Nixons, Dirksens, Rogerses, Lindsays, LaGuardias, Javitses, Warrens, Doles, Rockefellers, and Fords. Delaware’s own Cale Boggs, Pete DuPont, and Russell Peterson come to mind as well. This was the party that Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter were a part of, not the GOP that severely regretted those nominations later on.

After the ’80, ’84, and ’88 Presidential Campaigns, it was clear that that party was gone, one I could never be a part of if I had been alive, and had warped into a Party of Robert Tafts, Joseph McCarthys, Dulles, Kissingers, Reagans, Atwaters, Quayles, and Buchanans. Now Bush had left that other group and found a home in this one. As time went on, this would lead to full metamorphosis with Trump and all the people that have come along for the ride, although that is hardly Bush’s fault. I simply wish he had stood in protest when the Party went more right.

Truth be told, Bush was a much more like-able political persona before 1980, a World War II Veteran, a skilled diplomat, and patrician throughout. In many ways, his background and family remind me of John F. Kennedy. Neither him nor running-mate Dan Quayle deserve such a comparison (at least politically).

Nevertheless, Bush led the country with skill and passed the opportunity to gloat when the Cold War was ending, but postured intelligently on Russia, had restraint regarding China, and displayed a sense of fairness and pragmatism on the Israel-Palestine conflict, elected into office a year after the Palestinian declaration. It is hard for me to believe the Oslo I & II Accords would have come together if it was not for the First Bush Administration and then-Secretary of State James Baker. Bush also pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and helped create the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan. Bush was President when NAFTA was initially signed, which has turned out to curb illegal immigration and produce at least some economic benefit for Mexicans. He showed sympathy for undocumented immigrants and supported amnesty efforts.

America also finds itself in a time where those who are either hard left, hard right, or in the Oval Office currently do not support free trade, posture against Russia, restraint against China, pragmatism on Arab-Israeli matters, or compassion for immigrants. This used to build consensus among Democrats and Republicans in Washington before, which is perhaps why Bush is seen admirably by Democrats today.

On a personal note, it is the Bush Administration that was in power when my own parents were allowed entry as a permanent resident, as many Indians immigrated to the U.S. around that time (despite rather cold U.S.-India relations). I do not know if they would have been allowed in the United States later on had they been denied in 1991. For that, I will always be grateful to H.W.. I am also grateful for President Bush maintaining good bilateral ties with Pakistan and Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, as Bhutto warmed relations with India and maintained consistent restraint militarily. It was Bush who tried to hold Bhutto accountable on Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions, an indirect contribution to India’s security.

The Administration’s example on Israel-Palestine matters and relevant settlements is increasingly necessary in times like these where Marc Lamont Hill, a respectable academician and media figure, was recently fired from CNN for saying he believes in a “free Palestine from the river to the sea”, an incredulously offensive statement towards Israel. Hill goes on to say Israel has been committing “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians- does he know what ethnic cleansing actually means? Hill’s remarks otherwise had truths and merit, but was delivered in such an inflammatory way that I do think some discipline, a suspension (not firing), would have been appropriate. Hill also took down the “western lens” view of the conflict, but it is the western lens, which Bush provided, that held both sides accountable, prioritized human rights, and pushed for stable democracy. The non-western lens nearly never prioritizes human rights, non-bias, and stable democracy… all of which was provided by Bush for four years. It was not perfect, but hey, what is?

His legacy however, is tarnished by his record on social issues, which are not as sexy as economics or foreign affairs but are greatly important to the duties and responsibilities of any head of state representing his or her people.

He constantly tried to discredit Anita Hill constantly when he could have remained neutral in the Thomas-Hill saga, while recent accounts in the age of #MeToo have revealed that Bush, like President Clinton, may have acted inappropriately around women well before his health got worse.

In fact, when he became President, Bush had a shaky record on HIV/AIDS and LGBT rights as President, as aptly summarized in the Huffington Post. Bush was far better on the issue of HIV/AIDS than Reagan and did sign important legislation, but also shifted right on LGBT issues when he was primaried by Pat Buchanan. Bush could have done far more and maintained a moderate Republican ground. What makes matters worse is when he admitted he would be more far understanding than the last President (which was true), he inadvertently admitted that President Reagan was heartless on the matter, while Bush did nothing until he was President himself. Also, thank goodness Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressman Henry Waxman were there to keep the pressure up, an important component of any civil rights movement.

Finally, let one look to the present. Trump’s pre-midterm election commercial about illegal immigration and his caustic rhetoric on crime in general both have a distinct “Willie Horton” theme to it and the same tactics used to attack Anita Hill were recycled to attack Christine Blasey Ford in the Kavanaugh Confirmation.

Bush also left us as nothing less than a sheer partisan, one whose final tweets were supporting the Republican candidate for Governor in Colorado over Jared Polis, the conservative Democrat who was seeking to be the first openly-gay Governor in American history, and another tweet praising Susan Collins for voting aye on Kavanaugh, when she could have remained neutral or abstained (like Senator Lisa Murkowski) in light of disturbing and unvetted allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.

A little before that, reports came out that Bush Sr. voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election over Donald Trump. However, he never gave a formal endorsement of Clinton, in an election that was unparalleled in his importance for America’s trajectory. I wish he had done so, and we will never know its potential impact. I would much rather lose an election with Bush’s endorsement than lose without it.

As a whole, it is my belief that much of Bush’s foreign policy will age well as years go on and he will be treated kindly by history. As terrible as social policies may be, Bush should get praise for his diplomatic and military accomplishments. He had the skills to get things done, which does not have to be an ideological thing. Far too often, especially among the firebrands, skill, competence and work ethic are diminished by differing political ideology. What a step in the wrong direction.

I guess in some ways, Bush was a nice man, perhaps too nice, as he was corrupted by those around him, such as Lee Atwater and Floyd Brown, to name a few. The same can be said about his son George W. Bush, a nice man personally, but corrupted by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, something his father Bush Sr. would later admit as H.W. had known them for decades as colleagues and friends. Much of that is going to be portrayed in an upcoming film. H.W. deserves points for that candor and honesty.

Bush provided great company to others and was a devoted family man and of faith. It is no surprise he is the last Republican to have a resounding victory in a Presidential Election.

May he rest in peace and may the Bush family, in this difficult time, find solace in President Bush’s candor, humility, bipartisanship, and his service to the country.