AS America reels from the hateful blow and New York watches its most magnificent buildings crumble, our eyes turn to Washington for leadership and courage. There we find a new president, untested and untried, and wonder if he can lead our nation in its hour of peril and purpose. Would we be better if Clinton were in charge? Is Bush equal to the task?
In many ways Bush falls short, but in this situation, at this time, with this peril, this man is the right one to have in the White House.
Clinton is clearly more intelligent, but Bush's mind is clearer, simpler and more easily focused. Where Clinton sees complexity and paralyzing doubts, Bush acts instinctually with a sureness born of self-knowledge and abiding confidence.
Political considerations dog Clinton's every move, not because he is cynical, but simply because it's how he functions. Bush regards politics as an intrusion and likely loves the clarity and simplicity of a situation in which politics plays no role.
Surrounded by the most experienced, battle-tested and hardened leaders America has had at its helm since World War II, Bush can look to Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for guidance.
Compare the players: Would one rather have Cheney, a former defense secretary, coordinating the response or Gore, whose sole military experience was as a journalist in Vietnam?
Who is better at the State Department in this time of need? Lawyerly Warren Christopher or General Colin Powell?
At the battered Pentagon, would one rather have a former Maine senator, Bill Cohen, or a man who has served before at the helm of the military, former and current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld?
At times of hunger, poverty, disease and homelessness, one would rather have a Democrat in power. But when military action is needed, one is grateful for a Republican. Tokenism is the disease of Democrats. President Jimmy Carter sends in a few helicopters - which break down - to rescue hostages in Iran. President Clinton orders one-shot missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan and proclaims the mission accomplished.
To grasp why Bush, not Clinton, is the man needed at this hour, examine the former president's conduct in Kosovo.
Determined to avoid casualties, unwilling to sacrifice American lives, Clinton ordered the military response to confine itself to air strikes.
Micromanaging target selection, he vetoed use of Apache helicopters or low flying tactical fixed wing aircraft. Ground troops, which might have saved thousands, stayed at the border looking on in impotence.
Clinton's limited action in Kosovo certainly achieved its objective. But tokenism is not what is needed now.
George Bush will not be afraid to take casualties. He will act with a clarity and force that America needs and the world requires. Military philosopher Karl von Clausewitz wrote that "war is very simple but the simplest thing is difficult."
The simple has always been difficult for Bill Clinton. His mind wraps itself around details and focuses on every manner of implication. It is a brain designed for profundity, not for the simple, streamlined action that is now required.
George Bush trusts his advisors. He trusts his father. He trusts the men his father bequeathed to him. For Bill Clinton, trust came hard. Brighter than anyone around him, the former president had difficulty recognizing the soundness of sometimes simple analysis. Distrusting decisiveness, he always held his hand on his chess piece as he contemplated every opposition move.
Al Gore is, at heart, a pessimist. He was born with a good name and a life made for him. All he can do, he has felt from birth, is mess it up. So he is risk-averse. He sees flaws where others see opportu- nities. His mind is at its best at preventing failure rather than at leading the way to success. In other circumstances, he would make the better president. In this one, he falls short.
Bush is quite different. He is used to good outcomes in his life and is not afraid to see the world clearly, in black and white. If his simple impulse toward decency sometimes leaves him adrift in handling problems of great complexity, his is a mind perfectly suited to action. It is a mind well-suited to the present moment.
Basically, this is a pretty good assessment of algore except for the crap about how "in other circumstances, he would make the better president." B.S. Being risk averse and pessimistic is not leadership. Morris doesn't even bother to try to back this nonsense statement up. Gore would have been a complete disaster as president (Clinton--"sooooo smart!"--WAS a disaster).
Hmmm...
From the article: "If his [Bush's] simple impulse toward decency sometimes leaves him adrift in handling problems of great complexity ..."
Only people like Morris and the Clintons view decency as an impediment to problem solving.