Posted on 03/27/2003 5:00:44 PM PST by GailA
Flashbacks
Like Father, Unlike Son
March 26, 2003
n 1991, President George Bush directed the U.S. military into battle against Saddam Hussein. A little over a decade later, a second President George Bush is doing the same. Though in some ways it seems that history is repeating itself, George the younger is a very different man from George the elder. Whereas George W. Bush has been characterized—and criticized—as a leader who makes decisive split-second judgments and singlemindedly follows through on issues he cares about, his father, by contrast, was seen as a leader who preferred to avoid taking decisive or dramatic action. As an assortment of Atlantic articles from the 1980s and 1990s demonstrates, Bush the elder seems to have endured as much criticism for his perceived hesitancy and cautiousness as his son now endures for his perceived reckless determination.
In "The Republicans in '88" (July 1987) William Schneider argued that as a presidential candidate, Bush suffered from a "crisis of Vice-Presidential loyalty." Vice Presidents, Schneider pointed out, are prized for their loyalty to the President, and Bush had excelled in this regard. But, Schneider pointed out, That same quality makes for a poor presidential candidate ... Voters do not value "loyalty" in a President; they value independence and leadership, the image of a candidate as "his own man." On paper, Schneider noted, Bush looked like an excellent, highly qualified candidate. He served two terms as a congressman from Texas. He lost two Senate elections (good for humility). He was the chief United States delegate to the United Nations. He was the chairman of the Republican National Committee (during Watergate, no less). He was the U.S. envoy to China. He was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He ran for President. And he was elected and re-elected Vice President of the United States. But in spite of those impressive credentials, Bush couldn't seem to bring himself to step out from Reagan's long shadow. Bush knows that he is under pressure to differ from Reagan's policies, to reveal a message or vision of his own. But he also knows that the minute he distances himself from the Reagan Administration, he risks giving up his strongest advantage. So far he has played it safe and been impeccably loyal. He has done no more than hint at his own priorities. Because there was little articulated policy or ideology to criticize, those reluctant to support the Bush ticket focused on his background. To conservatives, his was little more than an "establishment career"—lacking any decisive agenda. And his aristocratic heritage was viewed as a real liability. Schneider suggested that when Alabama's lieutenant governor, Bill Blaxley, described Bush as "a pin-stripin', polo playin', umbrella-totin' Ivy Leaguer, born with a silver spoon so far back in his mouth that you couldn't get it out without a crowbar," he was expressing a widely held view.
The following year, William F. Buckley argued in "Bush for President" (October 1988) that Americans should support Bush precisely because of his sameness, predictability, and identification with Ronald Reagan. To reject Bush, he argued, would be "to turn our backs on the policies that have brought us peace and prosperity these past seven years."
He conceded that Bush was hardly a dynamic leader, but he argued that sometimes dynamism is not what is called for: Now, George Bush is correctly viewed as something less than (or other than, if you prefer) an evangelist. He is not William Wilberforce or John Brown or Theodore Roosevelt. He is a consolidator.
George Bush on television does not display his best qualities, any more than did Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower. At some point we will, I think, need to focus on the question Do we insist on a telegenic President? Bush has, in the phrase of one observer, filled about half the jobs there are in government. A defective character would by now be public knowledge. Those who have worked with him (which I have not done) agree that he has been tested by more varied experience of national government than any other applicant for the presidency in this century. Bush knows in his bones what a President Dukakis could learn only by an arduous tutelage of high potential cost. A majority of Americans apparently agreed with Buckley, because the following month they voted overwhelmingly to promote Bush to the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Nevertheless, America would have voted him into office for another 4 years save for Ross Perot's split of Conservative support.
Here's hoping that Nader and Sharpton continue to bleed the Left.
Protest Warriors
(on the "Right" Side of The Street)
Alan and Kfir of http://www.protestwarrior.com join Anna and Special Guest Hostess Diotima
to discuss
doing it Right
on the streets of the Left Coast
Click HERE to listen LIVE!
Call in! 1-868-RadioFR!
Let's hope it keeps happening to the Left.
Also too, if we lived in a post 9-11 atmosphere back in 1992, I don't think Clinton would have won, a wet-behind-the-ears, lecherous, little-known governor would not be the type of candidate to make Americans feel secure. Unless a strong-leader type emerges among the dem field, G.W. is in like Flynn in 04.
Bush I made many "assault weapon-ish" firearms illegal. Unlike Clinton, he didn't bother with Congress; instead, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool, eh?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.