Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iran Iraq Law Liberalism Libertarianism National Security Obama Pakistan Political Philosophy Politics The Opinionsphere The War on Terrorism

A Liberal Defends George W. Bush’s Legacy

Or, how George W. Bush has been just awful enough

[Photo by schani licensed under the Creative Commons and found here.]

[digg-reddit-me]Many liberals argue that George W. Bush’s presidency has been an unmitigated disaster; most libertarians see George W. Bush as the worst thing to happen to America since our government interned hundreds of thousands of Americans purely based on race and expanded government involvement in the economy at the same time. Even many conservatives now see George Bush’s tenure as a series of betrayals. The past eight years have been a dark time – with the specter of terrorism hanging over our lives – with an economy that has only benefited the elites – with America’s standing and influence in the world dropping precipitously – and with a government flailing about in attempts to prevent the next attack, attempts that have primarily succeeded in undermining our inherent liberties.

There is clearly a broad consensus that the Bush presidency has been a failure. A recent poll of historians recently ranked George W. Bush’s presidency as the worst in history; late last year, The Atlantic ran a cover story asking what lessons we can learn from Bush’s failed presidency; the American people have given George W. Bush the lowest approval ratings for a president since polls have been taken; and recent news reports have shown that over three quarters of Americans believe our country is on the wrong track. The consensus clearly is that Bush’s presidency has failed. It’s true that a number of conservatives have tried to defend Bush – Ross Douthat for example pointed out that Bush’s disasters do not rival the catastrophes of Civil War or Great Depression yet. But even the group considered the architect of many of Bush’s policies – the neo-conservatives, have begun to argue – as have failed ideologues again and again throughout history – that it was not that their ideas that failed – rather their ideas were never truly tried. Bush must know he is in trouble when even the neoconservatives are attacking him as weak and ineffective – or to use the term they use, “liberal”.

Having a somewhat contrary nature, I’m not so sure this almost universal consensus is true.

While I do see Bush’s presidency as a disaster, I believe a kind of redemption can be found in this disaster because Bush’s presidency: (a) could have been much worse; and (b) has created a unique historical opportunity.

My postulate is that George W. Bush’s presidency has been just bad enough to avoid destroying the core institutions that form the backbone of our society while creating a virtuous backlash that will strengthen these institutions in the long term. Bush has abused his power just enough, and aggravated festering issues just enough, and presided over a decline that was so sudden that he has created near ideal conditions to move the country in a positive direction.

Throughout history, the price of radicalism has been steep and the chances of reversing deep-seated trends has been long. Conservatives who opposed the social welfare programs of the New Deal tried and failed for a generation to rollback the programs that Franklin Delano Rooselvelt instituted in the wake of a Republican-abetted disaster. Unsuccessful and marginalized, these conservatives finally settled on a strategy of indirection. They called this strategy “starve-the-beast.” Seeing that they could not win by attacking the institutions of the New Deal directly, they decided to deliberately increase government spending to irresponsible levels while cutting taxes – which would leave no choice for a hypothetical future administration but to raise taxes massively or to reduce the size of government. 1 These conservatives realized that the only way to achieve the ends they sought was to create a set of circumstances that proved their opponents wrong, to discredit, through their actions, the basis of liberalism and create a virtuous backlash against excessive governance. They had seen that effective change throughout history had only occurred when the reigning ideology was proved bankrupt by circumstances. These conservatives believed that if they could undermine the credibility of government enough, their ideology would be the only alternative.

Unfortunately for these conservatives, whatever George W. Bush’s intentions were, his administration has been the most effective proponent of liberalism in modern times – as it demonstrated the bankruptcy of contemporary conservatism, undermined the credibility of the Republican Party, and created precisely opposite virtuous backlash than which they intended.

Bush’s effectiveness in advancing the goals he stood against comes has taken several interrelated forms:

  • Theoretical extremism: Although Bush has asserted virtually unlimited power – to torture, to detain anyone without charges, to engage in military action and wiretap without congressional approval – he has been relatively modest in his use of what he asserts are near unlimited powers. This has allowed significant forces to grow in opposition to this power grab without the widespread societal chaos that would have arisen out of a president fully exerting the powers he has claimed. (If Bush used the powers he asserts are his on a greater scale in America, our society would clearly be a totalitarian one. Instead, we remain a fragile liberal democracy until either Bush’s assertions of power are repudiated or are fully asserted.)
  • Overuse of a single method: Karl Rove directed three national campaigns – using national security, patriotism, and September 11 as partisan tools to bludgeon the Democrats. In each successive election dominated by these themes though, they lost effectiveness until 2006 when finally, they ceased being the controlling factor as the people – fooled for some of the time – handed an historic loss to the Republican Party. (If Karl Rove hadn’t used these themes so promiscously and shamelessly, more people might have put stock in the current smear campaign and fear-mongering being used against Obama and the Democrats.)
  • Exacerbating existing conditions: Bush has accelerated a number of longstanding trends: towards domestic inequality and the stratification of Americans into a class-like system; towards the decline in America’s power in the world; towards the government’s fiscal insolvency; towards the expansion of executive power; and towards the increase in the price of oil. This acceleration has exacerbated these issues so as to make them more noticeable.
    A lobster will not realize it is being cooked if it placed in a pot of water at room temperature and gradually boiled to death. In the same way, many Americans did not realize the dangers and the extent of the changes to American society that have been ongoing since at least the 1970s. The Bush administration – in a number of areas – raised the temperature fast enough and carelessly enough that many people have begun to notice. (If the price of oil had increased more regularly, people would be less worried about how it would be affecting them – and less attention would be paid to the largest transfer of wealth in human history that is currently taking place. If Iraq hadn’t demonstrated the limits to American power, it might have taken much longer for policy-makers to realize that we no longer live in a unipolar world.)
  • Suddenness: The suddenness of America’s decline in relevancy has led to a widespread desire for America to re-assume some leadership role with the next president – a desire reflected most significantly in the worldwide and domestic support for Barack Obama.

Bush has – in almost every respect – pointed America in the direction it needs to go. He has demonstrated what not to do. It is hard to imagine the libertarian or the progressive movements achieving their widespread support and strength if not for Bush’s presidency.

This election cycle has already demonstrated the strength of two responses to the Bush administration’s legacy – the libertarian response as embodied in the unlikely success of Ron Paul and the progressive response as embodied in the progressive netroots which powered Obama’s campaign. As a card-carrying civil libertarian and a lifelong progressive, Barack Obama has an opportunity to synthesize these two competing movements – to create a rough political consensus of the next steps we need to take. (I’ve written before both about how the libertarian movement and liberalism seem to be converging and about how Obama represents some part of this.) However, Obama’s vote for the FISA Amendments Act was a poor start to the creation of this alliance – as he took a position in defiance of both of these movements.

In a very real sense George W. Bush’s legacy depends on how well the next president is able to capitalize on the opportunity given to him – in this campaign and in his potential presidency. The final judgment on Bush will not be knowable when he leaves office. Rather, some years later we will be able to make a definitive judgment – after we see how intractable the problems he leaves for his successor are and when we see what precedents the next president will reject and which he will build upon. Bush may be forgiven for his disrespect for the Constitution if the next president repudiates these precedents. (After all, Washington was forgiven for Hamilton’s army; Lincoln was forgiven for becoming a tyrant for several weeks; and FDR was forgiven for trying to pack the Supreme Court.)

But while I argue that Bush’s primary legacy is that of a uniter-not-a-divider whose presidency set America on a better path, this rosy evaluation of Bush’s legacy still leaves three areas uncovered – areas in which Bush created unique problems rather than exacerbating existing ones: Iraq, the War on Terror, and global climate change.

Complications

Iraq

It is hard to imagine another president invading Iraq under the circumstances that George W. Bush did. The many American and the far more Iraqi dead that resulted from this foolish gamble, this dumb war, will surely burden his soul and must undermine any positive legacy he leaves behind. Even assuming the best of intentions, the Iraq war has proved to be a strategic blunder that has empowered Iran, destabilized the region, inspired more extremism, degraded our military, and only achieved the removal of minor antagonist. Making this strategic error worse was the hubris and idiocy that dogged every step of the occupation. Although our alliance of convenience with the Sunni extremists who were fighting us just a few months ago has helped to stabilize Iraq and even given the recent show of independence by the Iraqi president in his call for us to set a firm date of withdrawl, Iraq still has a long way to go before we can get out of this quagmire. Until we get out, the Iraq war will continue to eat our resources, undermine our global position, and strengthen our enemies.

The War on Terror

Domestically, the Bush administration has done virtually nothing to harden potential targets of terrorism – allowing the use of the funds appropriated for this purpose to be pissed away on pork barrel spending. The main steps it has taken within America seem designed primarily to expand executive power rather than to achieve any particular goals related to terrorism – asserting the power to crush the testicles of a potential terrorist’s child, to detain individuals without charges for indefinite periods of time, to torture, and to ignore any laws that limit the president’s power. Abroad, the Bush administration squandered our best opportunity to destroy Al Qaeda when it began to shift resources to Iraq and away from those who attacked us. The nexus of world terrorism shifted as a result of the War on Terror from the center of Afghanistan to the lawless areas of the Afghani-Pakistani border – where Chechnyan islamists, the remants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, veterans of the Zaraqawi’s Iraqi campaign, and other terrorists from around the world are now working together and with greater freedom than at any time since the attacks on September 11. The successes we have had in the War on Terror seem largely to be the fruits of our failures – as the islamist ideology has proven to be an unattractive one once it begins to rule any territory.

Global Climate Change

It is hard to imagine another president ignoring the growing signs and consensus of global climate change so steadfastly. The eight years the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases has wasted ignoring the problem – despite the near universal consensus of the scientific community – have made more drastic steps necessary to correct the problem before it is too late. What other president – with a legacy on climate change such as this – would have bragged at a recent G8 summit about being the “world’s biggest polluter“?

Conclusions

Lincoln Chafee, the Republican Senator from Rhode Island, observed upon first meeting Bush that Bush did not seem up to the job of being president. The past several years have proved this observation prescient. I cannot argue that Bush’s actions have been wise, although I do generally think that they have been well-intentioned. 2 But while George W. Bush and his administration have committed petty crimes, war crimes, and constitutional violations, attacked liberties, advocated the preemptive surrender of American values, usurped independent branches of the government for partisan ends, and caused the injury and death of thousands of Americans citizens and citizens of the world – it is Bush who created this moment – this moment for renewal that has traditionally been what sets America apart.

While Ron Paul believed we needed a revoliution to begin to reverse the growing encroachment of government (even if that required the exploitation of poisonous racial resentments) – all we really needed was George W. Bush.

If America truly is a great nation – and in order to redeem the vision of the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, of that great address of Abraham Lincoln, of the square deal of Teddy Roosevelt and the four freedoms of his cousin, of the city on the hill that an old Hollywood actor once invoked – we must take advantage of this opportunity. The American moment is now – as all of us, feeling the fierce urgency of now, must work to restore the America that we grew up believing in – to restore the ideal and to form a more perfect union. Throughout the dark times in American history, Americans have believed and fought for this idea of America – to make this idea a reality and to protect this idea from the encroachments of tyranny and totalitarianism.

Change doesn’t come easy – but the greatest legacy of George W. Bush is that he has made it easier – and given us this opportunity to create a more perfect union. There will be obstacles and compomises in the days ahead – but (yes) we can achieve real change. Bush, more than anyone, deserves responsibility for that.

  1. What else but this strategy could explain Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s massive deficit spending? []
  2. I know there are many who disagree. []

120 replies on “A Liberal Defends George W. Bush’s Legacy”

Love the line “He has demonstrated what not to do.”

So, having learned not to do, I can only imagine what would happen if Bush or his ally continue to rule.

Actually came by a good novel about this, called America 2014; a fiction picturing a totalitarian U.S. in 2014, with no end to War on Terror a 4th term President George Blush rules, with America renamed “God’s United States”; ring a bell to 1984; if interested go check it out at http://www.america2014.com

Thanks for the reflection.

B. Han

I agree with your thoughts. Our country needed a spark to start a renewal of structure and spirit and Stupid provided that spark. I think his 2 appointments may continue to haunt America long after he is gone but I am so hopeful that we can turn this country around.

Surprisingly enough, this is what the American people said about Hoover, about Reagan, about Truman, about Clinton, and if Lincoln wasn’t assassinated I wouldn’t doubt that he wouldn’t survive the political disaster of the reconstruction of the south (not to mention his extreme over abuse of his presidential powers). You talk about the “founding fathers” ideals, and yet Jefferson abused the constitution to buy the Louisiana Purchase, and John Adams and his Federalists created the Sedition Act which trampled on First Amendment rights. FDR, in a time of war, threw all the Japanese Americans in camps, Lyndon Johnson refused to end Vietnam, and JFK lead the most pathetic assault on Cuba the world has seen.

I don’t agree with a lot of what Bush has done and I think he definitely isn’t a leader, but at the same time I don’t pretend that I could do any better, or that the Presidents before him were perfect, and I don’t delude myself into thinking that electing another President (Like Obama or McCain) is really going to do much of anything anyway.

The saddest irony is that while Bush burns for the nations woes (much of which he can’t control), and not to mention just as Hoover was burned for the Great Depression (much of which he had no control), we let Congress slide idly by as if they don’t make any decisions at ALL. And I would like to remind that Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush. But, its a large group of people, how can we blame all those people when maybe some of it wasn’t their fault? Let’s just burn the guy that we think is KING of our nation.

I think everyone is better off remembering the phrase: “popularity does not mean right” and vis a versa. Bush’s decisions are not popular today but they happen to be right in most cases. Remember how unpopular it was to stand up to Hitler in the mid-1930’s… The term warmonger was thrown around by the British media onto anyone INCLUDING CHURCHILL, who stated it was necessary to confront Hitler before it was too late. Again the “popular” course of action is “does not mean the right course of action”

History and posterity will remember President Bush as a man who did not flip flop because of pol.ls and popularity but a man who stood by what he believed in, all people deserve to live in freedom. Even more so, President Bush will be rewarded as a man who took action at a time when his opposition advocated re-action.

Jason –

I’m not sure how accurate your history is here. Clinton was generally considered to have had a successful presidency; Hoover is still considered to have been on of the worst presidents. Although Truman was considered a disaster at the time, historians have reevaluated him – lead by David McCullough. What is it then that “the American people” said about all of these presidents, that they have in common? I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make.

As for the compromises and betrayals of the American ideals by various presidents throughout history – that’s kind of my point. Everyone is a mixed bag – and politics is compromise. That doesn’t diminish their ideals. The goal, of every generation anew, is to create a more perfect union – as Lincoln did by eliminating slavery and preserving the Union, even as he violated the Constitution – as FDR did by expanding the government’s power over the daily lives of Americans while preserving the basic foundation of a free market economy. I do talk about the founder’s ideals – and yes, LBJ did not end Vietnam. I’m not sure I see your point.

And you’re right that Bush can’t be blamed for “our nation’s woes”. I don’t try to do so. There are a number of areas which Bush does bear a great deal of personal blame for the failures – Iraq (because the war was elective and because he could have changed many aspects of how it was done), the War on Terrorism (because he shifted resources from defeating al Qaeda to Iraq and chose to ignore the lessons of history in counter-terrorism measures at home), global climate change (because of his obstinate inaction), executive overreach, etcetera. The presidency is a powerful office – and Bush could have given his authority as president taken very different actions. He was – in these areas – the single most important decider and decision-maker. In other areas, such as economic policy and fiscal responsibility, Bush cannot be blamed for the systematic issues – but the policies he pushed through have exacerbated these issues – so he bears some measure of blame for the extent of the problems – even as he did not cause the problems themselves.

You say that you don’t pretend you could have done better than Bush. Are you saying that you would have insisted on an elective war? That you would have deliberately tried to expand the powers of the executive branch and upset the balance of powers? The Economist magazine – a generally conservative publication – called George W. Bush a radical in 2004. My point in all this is that George W. Bush did not just make hard decisions and try to manage things as best as he could – he instigated problems by taking bold, risky gambles which someone with decent judgment or a sense of humility would not do.

No one here is pretending that any president is perfect. But if you don’t see the difference between Bush’s presidency and Clinton’s or Lincoln’s or Reagan’s or his father’s – or you think all of them are equivalent – then it seems to me that you must be missing something.

You say that electing another president isn’t going to do much of anything. I agree that it will not cause a radical realignment of our nation – we have interests and a new president doesn’t change those interests; societies are naturally resistant to dramatic change.

But: Bush’s presidency and the manner in which it is ending with multiple waves of disasters coinciding and reinforcing one another leaves America in a position to change more than usual. And it is short-sighted to argue that a president’s policies don’t matter much. Imagine what a different position we would be in today if Gore had been president instead of Bush. Even in less dramatic times, a president – while lacking the power to single-handedly change the course of history – can set in motion chains of events, can shift policies, can refrain from taking particular action in such a way as to make a huge difference.

I do think it matters who the next president is – and although I realize that I cannot know definitively who will be the right person for the time – I believe it is my duty to make the best decision possible, and if the answer is clear enough, to do whatever is possible to get that person elected.

Seth,

I don’t think anyone is making the case here that Bush’s actions are wrong because they are unpopular. But what are examples of Bush’s policies that are right in your opinion?

And how does the president’s expansion of executive power fit into the one principle you identify him as having: “all people deserve to live in freedom”? How is his support for Putin and Musharraf not a flip-flop of sorts?

And what do you mean by saying Bush supported action while his opponents supported re-action?

I find it absolutely crazy that any thinking person with at least a hint of conscience could make the following uninformed statements. Bush lied to start a war in Iraq when he clearly knew that they were not a threat to the US and that they were not a terrorist threat. He and his gang, Cheney, CEO of Haliburton, the Oil Companies, and the Military Industrial Complex have made windfall profits on the suffering of 4,500 dead Americans. over 40,000 wounded Americans with over 50% suffering from TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) The highest suicide rate of and military conflict and 60% of the homeless are veterans. Over 50% of the veterans were divorced, they lost their homes, careers, families and became bankrupt, which is why many became homeless they had no place to go. All of this because of George Bush’s lies and the thoughtless sheep who supported him. Bush’s lies have resulted in a ruined economy, a trashed environment, an international image where the US is now considered to be a dangerous country. Bush has been proven to be dead wrong on most of his policies. But, Hitler, Musilleni, Stalin and Chairman Mao had their supporters as the evil one Bush has his.

Mister Bill West Virginia

# Seth Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

“Bush’s decisions are not popular today but they happen to be right in most cases.” “History and posterity will remember President Bush as a man who did not flip flop because of pol.ls and popularity but a man who stood by what he believed in, all people deserve to live in freedom. Even more so, President Bush will be rewarded as a man who took action at a time when his opposition advocated re-action.”

UNBELIEVABLE

[…] Onion An oldie but goodie from January 2001. Can it really be called satire anymore?  A Liberal Defends George W. Bush’s Legacy 2parse/blog Or, how George W. Bush has been just awful enough [Photo by schani licensed under the […]

Joe,

Sorry for the late reply, as I have been away on business. You ask good questions.
“What are examples of Bush’s policies that are right in your opinion?”
My answer is the general policies and positions President Bush took in the war against International Terrorism has led to many success, many not seen. The biggest success of which, he has presided over prevention of another Terrorist attack in America since 9/11. This is a HUGE accomplishment.

“How does the president’s expansion of executive power fit into the one principle you identify him as having: ‘all people deserve to live in freedom’?”
Yes President Bush has sought expansion of executive powers to adapt to and fight a new war environment not previously fought in American history. However, it is precisely the Executive Branch’s responsibility to just to and adapt to new environments both domestically and internationally, so as to properly meet those challenges. I would argue that in no sense does the expansion of executive power sought by President Bush after 9/11 even remotely contradict the phrase “all people deserve to live in freedom”, after all it is exactly those freedoms the president is fighting for in the war against International Terrorism.

“How is his support for Putin and Musharraf not a flip-flop of sorts?”
On this front, along with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, I think President Bush should be more much forceful in demanding transparent governments and more political and property rights for its people. If he were stronger on those points these countries would cede these rights to some additional significant extent, their people.

“What do you mean by saying Bush supported action while his opponents supported re-action?
I mean that President Bush’s actions have been of the sort of taking initiative rather than taking reactive action. President Bush has done his job by taking the LEAD. Too many “leaders” follow polls and never lead except when it is popular. Another example of leadership is in Columbia and President Uribe. President Bush lead, not on what is most popular but on what is morally principled. He minimized the importance of “Politically Correct” words and deeds by calling a terrorist a terrorist, when most media outlets do not even use the word. Many, in fact most of his domestic opposition rails against President Bush, and has done so since 2004, but they do not offer any decisive counterpoints.

These are lengthy subjects, that I would be glad to continue discussing. From the points I made above I am sure you already have your counter points ready to go. To prevent the normal political arguments from taking place and as such not getting to a solution, such as those given from TV’s talking heads, lets resolve to discuss these issues at the root of the matter, the philosophical premise – what is right and wrong. What is the role of the US President. What do the responsibilities to lead entail…

clever analysis of the “New Deal”
The point that is missing is FDR had a filibuster-proof majority, and was thus allowed to institute his own “enlightened” form of socialism (read: communism lite). As a matter-of-fact, his own party revolted and enacted presidential term limits. How does one spell “Mussolini” in English? The issue which any cheerleader for the “American Experiment” might well dwell on is the promise of “change” from the liberal camp… that is, an unobstructed march toward unabashed socialism. A filibuster-proof majority becomes de-facto mandate, and if you thought the constitution was in shambles now, You Ani’t Seen Nothin’ Yet.

Tell me I’m wrong…
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=OSH06

-DISMISSIVE

The Legacy of George W Bush, A Collection of Conflicting Opinions

ISBN-13 9781441455437

The debate over George W Bush is probably the most visceral debate of our century. There often seems to be no in
between. Folks either love him or hate him. As we approach the inauguration of Barrack Obama, the internet has
been bombarded with opinions ranging from one extreme to the other. In this book is a collection of dialog from all
over the world and every walk of life. In an eight hour period of time just prior to GWB stepping out of the White
House, one that that rings true is that we live in an amazing country just to be able to have this conversation.

Can a man’s legacy be drawn from an eight year period in time? What kind of a footprint has GWB left on the
American people, or the world for that matter? Has he served his country well by protecting us from terrorism, or has
a alienated America from the rest of the world. What role did Christianity play under the leadership of George W
Bush? Has he acted as a Christian in his role as President of the United States, or has he misused the Bible as a
means of procuring votes and evoking war? Was the rebuilding of Iraq set in motion years before the Twin Towers
tragedy, or was this a rapid decision based on an emergent circumstance? Did Iraq have
weapons of mass destruction, or should we have been focusing on catching Bin Ladin? What about North Korea and
Proliferation of nukes in Iran? Was there miscommunication between the CIA and the FBI and why was Home Land
Security restructured as it was? Were our civil rights violated by the Echelon Program? The list of questions will go
on for an eternity and there will probably be more theories about the Bush Administration than the JFK assassination
and the Watergate Scandal combined.

I have tried to keep this debate as original as possible. That includes errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. I
have also tried to collect them in a somewhat chronological method in order to keep a level playing field. I have
simply collected publicly posted comments of others from open sources with no expectation of privacy or
concealment. This is simply a collection of what others have had to say. I have tried to eliminate
personal attack between the folks debating (or at least leaving out what I thought may be real names of folks) Some
of the statements are redundant, just as they came down the pipeline. What ever your opinion of George W Bush Is….
This is a compelling, and somewhat disturbing read.

Speaking of George W. Bush:

George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).

George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.

Many people know what Bush did.

And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

Bush was absolute evil.

Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.

Bush is a psychological prisoner.

Bush has a lot to worry about.

Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.

In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

Es la mejor manera absoluta de encontrar personas que no sólo quieren trabajar para usted, sino que desea también! La mayoría de los candidatos que obtiene de la publicación de trabajos en lugares como monstruo o workopolis son absolutamente terribles.Venganza

Creo que las ferias de carrera son una buena cosa. No sólo reducen los costos, sino que dan mucha credibilidad a la conferencia. Por primera vez estuve al otro lado de la feria de la carrera.Disiarte

Creo que las ferias de carrera son una buena cosa. No sólo reducen los costos, sino que dan mucha credibilidad a la conferencia. Por primera vez estuve al otro lado de la feria de la carrera.Disiarte

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Es la mejor manera absoluta de encontrar personas que no sólo quieren trabajar para usted, sino que desea también! La mayoría de los candidatos que obtiene de la publicación de trabajos en lugares como monstruo o workopolis son absolutamente terribles.Venganza

Es la mejor manera absoluta de encontrar personas que no sólo quieren trabajar para usted, sino que desea también! La mayoría de los candidatos que obtiene de la publicación de trabajos en lugares como monstruo o workopolis son absolutamente terribles.Venganza

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Creo que las ferias de carrera son una buena cosa. No sólo reducen los costos, sino que dan mucha credibilidad a la conferencia. Por primera vez estuve al otro lado de la feria de la carrera.Disiarte

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Es la mejor manera absoluta de encontrar personas que no sólo quieren trabajar para usted, sino que desea también! La mayoría de los candidatos que obtiene de la publicación de trabajos en lugares como monstruo o workopolis son absolutamente terribles.Venganza

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: