March 4, 2006
THATCHER AT HOME, REAGAN ABROAD:
The New Presidential Equation (David M. Shribman, 3/04/06, Real Clear Politics)
George W. Bush inspires unusually passionate support and provokes unusually passionate opposition. The gap between the two -- think of it as the presidential passion gap -- suggests that future historians will fight with unusual passion about his legacy and the meaning of Mr. Bush's presidency.But as his presidency progresses -- as he does more and as his earlier actions recede from current events into history -- it is becoming increasingly clear that his decisions and initiatives are being drawn from an increasingly broad palette of precedents and presidents. He is more than an updated version of his father, or the product of the natural maturation of the ideas of Ronald Reagan -- notions that many analysts, including yours truly, have argued.
Now I am not so sure that the simpler explanation works. Now, especially in foreign policy, I think he is an enigmatic admixture of four presidents, two Democrats and two Republicans, two peacetime presidents and two wartime chief executives, two from early in the 20th century and two from the post-war midsection of the 20th century.
His supporters and detractors alike argue that the president is 100 percent George W. Bush. But I am coming to the conclusion that he is one part William Howard Taft, one part Woodrow Wilson, one part John F. Kennedy and one part Richard M. Nixon.
No president who presides over eight years of economic growth fares too poorly in the history books, but add in the advances in the Third Way at home and in the liberalization of the Middle East and he stands to be ranked as one of the only three significant presidents in the past hundred years. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 4, 2006 8:19 PM
Why not just come out and say it. Bush is a Christian, or at least trying to be one. No mystery here.
Posted by: jdkelly at March 4, 2006 9:12 PM"George W. Bush inspires unusually passionate support and provokes unusually passionate opposition. The gap between the two -- think of it as the presidential passion gap -- suggests that future historians will fight with unusual passion about his legacy and the meaning of Mr. Bush's presidency."
But shouldn't passion subside as time goes by (I'm talkin' fifty or more years here)? Particularly for historians? The Taft example I just don't get. Kennedy didn't serve long enough to support any parallel. Wilson . . . I suppose superficially so, but I don't think Bush has near as much faith in international institutions as Wilson. The Nixon comparison is bizarre.
oj:
I take your point about presidents presiding over economic growth, but, for the life of me, I can't describe the economy under most presidents (employing standard economic indicators). Fairly or not, 'legacy' is mostly about foreign policy. This is why I always chuckle when Clinton supporters talk about his legacy. Fifty years from now, he'll be considered a third-tier placeholder, alongside Bush 41.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at March 4, 2006 9:41 PMWilson and Nixon were evil, Taft and Kennedy didn't accomplish much. Bush is both consequential and good. I don't see the parallels.
Posted by: pj at March 4, 2006 11:48 PMThe liberalisation of the Middle East is a long way off, and the Third Way advances could best be described as incremental. How Bush is perceived by posterity will depend a lot on the attitudes of his successors towards the Third Way and how well Iraq turns out.
I'd say Reagan, FDR, Truman and Wilson were all more consequential than him.
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at March 5, 2006 6:30 AMFred:
No, only Bill Clinton has ever had as good an economy as W, and you remember it rather easily because it will be a major part of his legacy. Nor will he be remembered as similar to 41, but to 43. He's Grover Cleveland.
Posted by: oj at March 5, 2006 8:13 AMjd:
Which is why neocons, libertarians and liberals have so much trouble understanding him.
Posted by: oj at March 5, 2006 8:16 AMAli:
The liberalization of Eatern Europe was a long way off when Reagan left office while its oppression was begun under FDR.
Only two issues mattered after WWII was won, ending Communism abroad and the socialist version of the Welfare State at home. Truman (and Ike for that matter) failed these tests spectacularly. Reagan began the fight against them for which he wins signifigance.
Posted by: oj at March 5, 2006 8:24 AMI often wonder if things would have turned out significantly different had Wilson not taken ill at a crucial time in our history and if Kennedy had served out his term as a weak ineffectual playboy and even, thanks to his adoring media, won a second term.
On balance, I'd say the big guy up there is keeping a keen eye on his pet project down here.
JFK would have lost to AUH2O
Posted by: oj at March 5, 2006 1:27 PMNot if the media and the Rockefeller Republicans had anything to say about it. They would have trashed Mr. Goldwater just the same way and given Kennedy the star treatment.
Imagine eight years of Kennedy. Aieee. My eyes, my eyes.
Posted by: erp at March 5, 2006 4:28 PMNot if the media and the Rockefeller Republicans had anything to say about it. They would have trashed Mr. Goldwater just the same way and given Kennedy the star treatment.
Imagine eight years of Kennedy. Aieee. My eyes, my eyes.
Posted by: erp at March 5, 2006 4:28 PMNo, they hated Kennedy by then, only the assassination saved his reputation.
Posted by: oj at March 5, 2006 4:33 PMSandy, No it can't even be imagined. I hope your father isn't too disappointed.
Jack Kennedy was a terrible human being, but it's a mistake to confuse him with his youngest brother. If George Bush were to give JKF's inaugural address today, he'd be roasted by the media as a Christocrat.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 6, 2006 11:58 AMDavid, What do you mean by "don't confuse him with his youngest brother"?
His youngest brother doesn't even merit an asterisk in the history books, except maybe as the longest running member of the senate who got away with murder.
Posted by: erp at March 6, 2006 12:20 PM