Replies

Bush is a Cold War consensus President, after the pattern set by Eisenhower. You can also add the elder Bush, and Ford, and Kennedy to that category, and, with reservations, Nixon and Truman also. The reservations have to do with Truman's extreme partisanship. Truman was certainly a Cold War President and certainly trying to keep to a consensus, but he couldn't resist bashing his enemies more than was necessary. The reservation about Nixon has to do with the real divisions in the country during Nixon's era. He was trying to be that kind of Cold War consensus President, but it wasn't possible, and he was also caught up in bitter domestic political battles.

The exceptions were Johnson, who certainly prided himself on seeking a consensus but who was first carried away by his landslide and then carried off by the rise of radicalism, Carter, who was independent-minded and not so willingly a Cold War leader, and Reagan, who was certainly a Cold War President, but in a country where consensus no longer existed and couldn't be restored along the post-New Deal pattern. Reagan's "radicalism" is always exagerated, but it is true that he couldn't or wouldn't stay entirely and forever in the groove that Eisenhower established. He wanted to change the dimensions of American domestic policy, not radically, but in some areas significantly.

So Bush is nothing new. He's a lot like Nixon or Eisenhower. The same sort of Republican President sometimes carrying through liberal Democratic policies. Social liberalism is no longer the dominant ideology in the country, but it remains powerful in Washington.

Seen against the hopes of the Reagan era, Bush is in some ways a disappointment. But parties intend to govern. They want to form majorities and get reelected. Their finest hours come in opposition, when they stand for a given set of principles. But they can't remain the principled opposition forever without disappearing, and in office they have to be more practical. Once in office, political figures also have wider responsiblities than newspaper or magazine or e-zine ideologues. And beyond all this, Bush will be judged as a war President, and his chief responsibilities will lie in that sphere.

One question to think about is, how much control do parties have to have to make real changes? Controling the Presidency and having a small margin in one house may allow for some new departures, but not many. And what do you prioritize? Saying Bush is all wrong isn't so hard, but what do you cut first? What do you stake your seats on in the next election?

Even Reagan had to concentrate on a few big ideas and changes, rather than many small ones. And prioritizing does keep parties and nations out of too much trouble. When they get their way on everything, the possibility for mischief increases.