|
For years we’ve been hearing George W. Bush described as “the worst president in history,” “a failed leader,” and “a disgrace,” but I guess the pundits and pooh-bahs forgot to tell the president. In his final State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush neither looked nor sounded like a beaten man. As always on these occasions he came across as energetic, determined, principled and substantive.
That’s not to say it was a great speech: in his final chance at this great national ritual, the president may have seemed a bit less ambitious, a bit less historic than on previous occasions. Despite his reputation as a clumsy speaker and inept communicator, he’s actually done a consistently first class job with his SOTU addresses. He speaks in comprehensible yet occasionally soaring terms, with none of the windy laundry lists that characterized Bill Clinton’s approach to these occasions (in his last SOTU, Bubba droned on for an excruciating 89 minutes).
Liberal commentator Jacob Weisberg wrote today in the New York Times about the AWOL “Compassionate Conservative” featured in all the previous State of the Union Speeches in the Bush presidency: despite re-assuring rhetoric about cooperation and bi-partisanship, the Commander-in-Chief never managed to build the sort of cooperative relationship with Democrats he so conspicuously enjoyed with the Democratic legislature when he served as Governor of Texas. Even before 9/11 transformed him into a war President, even before the decision to strike against Saddam made him look like a “war criminal” to the loony left, Bush had secured the sort of implacable enmity that made bi-partisanship not only unattainable but unthinkable.
Ironically, Ronald Reagan – with a much stronger and clearer ideological commitment – managed to work with Democrats far more effectively(despite a Republican Senate for six of his eight White House years, Reagan faced a hefty Democratic House majority throughout his presidency).
I would submit that circumstances, as much as personality or policy, contributed to both Reagan’s success and the frequent failure of Bush at reaching across party lines for support.
In many ways, Bush never managed to overcome the fiery resentment associated with the allegedly “stolen election” of 2000. For the first time in 112 years (since Benjamin Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland) a candidate lost the popular vote but won the presidency. From the beginning, Democrats (in Congress as well as the country at large) saw Bush as illegitimate, a usurper, an unworthy interloper. They schemed against him fro the beginning: remember the case of “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffors, and the flip of the Senate to Democratic control? Despite the multiple olive branches Bush tried to wave in his State of the Union some seven years ago, despite the initial collaboration with Teddy Kennedy on No-Child-Left-Behind, the Democrats never accepted the hand extended to them.
With Reagan, by contrast, no one questioned his mandate: he had defeated Carter in a sweeping landslide. Moreover, within four months of his inauguration a would-=be assassin wounded him in the chest, and the entire nation rallied to the gallant, stricken president. While the first months of Bush’s term (before the terrorist attacks of September 11) featured surly Democrats who felt they’d been cheated, not defeated, the first months of Reagan’s term showed Democrats joining Republicans in wishing and praying for a wounded president’s speedy recovery.
Noting these circumstances isn’t meant to deny the failings and stumbles by Bush and his aides that contributed to polarization in Washington, not is it intended to suggest that John Hinckley had more to do with the triumphs of Reagan’s first year in office than Reagan himself.
It is, however, always appropriate to remind ourselves that in politics and all other aspects of our lives, context counts.
Tonight, the members of both houses of Congress, and of both parties, seemed to greet the president with undeniable warmth, even an edge of nostalgia over the realization that the Texan won’t be back for another such occasion.
Could even hardened Democrats feel some inner yearning for the cooperation and joint efforts they’ve spurned for many years? Probably not, because the hyper-partisanship has brought them House and Senate victories for the first time in twelve years.
Nevertheless, you could discern the atmosphere of a high school graduation in the House chamber tonight: where the knowledge that you’ll never return to precisely these classmates, never again share either with them either camaraderie or competition, makes even the class bullies you always loathed look suddenly like bosom pals you’ll deeply miss.
|