|
The Mentor
NEWS ANALYSIS by Kevin McNeill
Much has been made of the fact that President George W. Bush strains to
emulate the presidency of Ronald Reagan rather than his father’s. Now that
President Reagan has been laid to rest, the countless eulogies have been made,
and Bush’s first term draws to a close, it may be worthwhile to check on how
well the President is measuring up to his idol.
First and foremost, Reagan’s main approach towards the presidency was that one
must be daring to achieve a lasting legacy. He believed strongly that the
President was obligated to use all the powers the office bestowed on him to
fundamentally transform the nation and the world, no matter how much those
actions offend the status quo. In short, Ronald Reagan believed that a
President must take great risks to achieve great things, that one must strive
to do what many think cannot be done, so the American people become even more
optimistic about what could be done next. President George W. Bush clearly has
subscribed to this principle, and the consequences, as it was with his mentor,
have been significant.
In 2000, Bush did what few Republicans have ever dared – he touched the mighty
Third Rail of American politics and proposed partial privatization of Social
Security. Four years later those reforms have yet to come to pass, but the
fact that he introduced them to the public during an election, rather than
after it, showed he was serious about making big changes in government. His
first term did, however, bring about the most sweeping education reform in 40
years, the most far reaching tax cuts in history, a new Homeland Security
Department, renewal of “fast track” trade authority, and with it promises to
expand NAFTA to the entire Western Hemisphere. His presidency also produced
other bold reforms that were far from the top of his agenda – in fact probably
not on his agenda at all - such as the passage of McCain-Feingold and the
Corporate Accountability Act.
Abroad, President Bush has been even more daring, much as Reagan’s foreign
policy strived to be. Upon taking office, Reagan set out not to contain
Communism – as was the status quo for the previous 35 years – but to defeat
it. He called the Soviet Union the “evil empire,” deployed Pershing missiles
in Europe, engaged America in a costly nuclear arms race with the Soviets,
exhorted Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, and openly supported
anti-Communist rebels in Latin America. For eight years, he stubbornly stayed
this course in the face of countless scathing editorials, public denunciations
(including from his own daughter), and waves of protests and demonstrations
around the globe. Reagan was resolute, for one simple reason: He believed he
was right, and that history would vindicate him. He was and it did.
President George W. Bush knows this lesson all too well. After campaigning in
2000 that he would not engage in “nation building,” Bush completely changed
his worldview, and his presidency, after September 11th 2001.
President Bush is now actively building not one, but two nations. He has used
American military might to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from
power, and is striving to implement a Western style Democracy on a region
thousands of miles away that has known nothing but tyranny, oppression and
poverty for thousands of years.
More importantly, he implemented a transformational policy of “pre-emption,”
which states that, due to the spread of weapons of mass destruction, America
has an obligation to go to war against nations before they become a threat.
The status quo has long held that one does not attack unless they have been
attacked, and that pre-emption constitutes nothing more than aggression. Like
Reagan, Bush rejected the status quo. His blunt language, such as using
phrases like “axis of evil” and “shock and awe” have led to a chorus of
condemnations from editorial boards and intellectuals around the world. His
use of force against Iraq has instigated some of the largest mass
demonstrations and protests in history. Reagan would be proud.
President Bush believes strongly that Democracy can take hold in the Middle
East, and spread throughout the Arab world, giving the people freedom they
have never known. He has faith that this would bring a new appreciation for
the United States, and with it a rejection of radical Islamic teachings
against the West. He has bet his legacy on it.
If history proves him right, President Bush will be remembered as one of the
most significant presidents of the 21st century. If history proves him wrong,
his presidency will be remembered as one of almost total failure, one that
made the world a far more dangerous place. Either way, Ronald Reagan’s
stubbornness and boldness will be well recognized in this President.
There are many more similarities, some nearly as significant. Both Reagan and
Bush held true to supply-side economics, which states that cutting taxes
creates more revenue through job growth, and that by also cutting spending the
American people can have balanced budgets and lower taxes. Both succeeded in
passing huge tax cuts. Both saw economic benefits from those tax cuts, and
increased tax revenue. And of course, both failed miserably at controlling
government spending – leading to huge deficits. Reagan claimed the latter was
his biggest disappointment upon leaving office.
However, Reagan had to contend with large Democratic majorities in the House
for his entire Presidency – leading to compromises that increased domestic
spending in exchange for increased defense spending. Bush has had a Republican
Congress for most of his first term, yet has been unable to keep his own party
from huge spending increases – even in the wake of recession and war. This may
prove to be President Bush’s greatest disappointment upon leaving office as
well.
Both presidents have been remarkably underestimated by their opponents – and
both seemed to relish the role. Reagan was famously called an “amiable dunce.”
Bush’s antagonists are not as kind, referring to him as a “chimp” and a moron.
Both are often derided as cowboys with simple minds. Even in the wake of great
political success - such as Reagan’s two landslide elections, or Bush’s first
midterm election - and legislative accomplishments, their opponents point to
luck or Democratic incompetence before giving either President any credit.
Yet neither ever once tried to argue that they were indeed much smarter than
their opponents portrayed them – choosing instead to use this as an advantage.
In the presidential debates of 1980 and 2000, for example, both men proved
quite adept at not only lowering expectations of themselves, but far exceeding
them. Their performances in these debates in large measure helped get them to
the White House.
Both entered politics late in life, due mostly because they had no interest in
it until that point. Reagan was 54 years old when he first became Governor of
California. That is roughly the same age Bill Clinton was when he left the
White House after two terms as president. George W. Bush was 48 when he became
Governor of Texas, although he did run unsuccessfully for Congress in 1978.
Still, many in Texas believe that had Bud Selig not double-crossed him in 1990
and taken the job for himself, we’d be calling him “Commissioner Bush” today
instead of President.
Of course, there are several differences between the two Presidents as well.
For example, Bush is a member of one of the most prominent political families
in America. His father was a President, his Grandfather a Senator. Reagan’s
father was poor and an alcoholic. Bush holds degrees from Yale and Harvard.
Reagan graduated from Eureka College. In this sense, Bush has more in common
with John F. Kennedy (son of the legendary Joseph Kennedy), whereas Reagan’s
more humble beginnings could be compared to Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon.
Still, the similarities are striking. President Bush clearly emulates the man
his father served as Vice President for eight years – both in conservative
principles and concepts of leadership. He can only hope that he can emulate
Reagan’s legacy as well. |
