WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The sight of George W. Bush comfortably
ensconced in the White House and of his liberal opponents forlornly
shivering in the cold vividly signifies that the winds of history have
ushered in a new era.
Bush II's control of all three branches of government and the
presence in his government of public figures whose eminence traces from the
"Reagan Revolution" demonstrates that this presidency represents not just a
change of government but the arrival of a new political era -- marking the
final passing of the liberals, so-called. As Robert Bartley recently noted
in The Wall Street Journal, the presidency of George W. Bush probably marks
the rise of a new political establishment.
This fall's midterm election should have cleared up any doubts
that sensible people might have harbored about the 2000 election. In
electoral districts all around the country, voters had the opportunity to
rectify what the Democrats decried as a great wrong, Al Gore's defeat in the
Electoral College. With a boldness that New Frontiersmen once celebrated in
JFK, President Bush placed his popularity on the line by campaigning widely.
The result was the rare improvement of a sitting president's power in both
houses of Congress. Now, with the Democrats in disarray and the president's
popularity about where Ronald Reagan's was after his crushing 1984
re-election, commentators might begin to wonder if the Republicans have
found themselves another political prodigy in W., as the snide are wont to
call him.
He is as much a man of principle as Reagan. That the principles
are an organic extension of principles Reagan governed with in the 1980s
(and that Bill Clinton mimicked in the 1990s) adds to the sense that with
this presidency a new political establishment has arisen. Yet though
President Bush's policies are rooted in the domestic and foreign policies of
President Reagan, his management of the White House is different.
To be sure, he seems to have Reagan's mastery of political
timing. He has the same human touch as Reagan and an emphasis on values
rather than being a policy wonk. Yet this president is a more energetic
chief executive than Reagan. He, not Karen Hughes or Karl Rove or anyone
else, is calling the shots at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Bush is a political
leader and an active White House executive.
The result is that this White House is a more tightly run
operation than the Reagan White House. It is pretty much free of leaks and
of bickering. Equally impressive, this president has stood by his policies
and appointments resolutely. This is apparent in his perseverance on tax
cuts and on judicial appointments. After the public injustice of Senate
Democrats' smearing such perfectly unexceptional Bush judicial nominees as
Judge Charles Pickering and Miguel Estrada, the president simply
re-nominated them. The Reagan White House, to its shame, backed off from
appointments when the Democrats turned up the heat in the kitchen -- for
instance, when they smeared Judge Robert Bork. President Bush is more
resolute and more loyal.
The president's loyalty and sense of honor were on admirable
display after the liberal snipes set out to defame former Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger, whom the White House had nominated to chair the
investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. I was out of the country during this
latest display of liberal witch hunting. I wish I had been around for the
fight. For decades, Kissinger's bona fides as a statesman and patriot have
merely grown. All the paranoid charges against him, claims of plotting in
Latin America and scheming in Southeast Asia, have proven as vaporous as the
liberal Democrats' more recent paranoia over October surprises and Vast
Right-Wing plots.
In three volumes of memoirs, a superb book on diplomacy and now
a history of the Vietnam War due in bookstores this month, Kissinger has
answered his critics to the satisfaction of any objective observer. He has
counseled presidents and foreign statesmen. He has served the commonweal
with tireless public service. He now ranks with the nation's greatest elder
statesmen. Yet Democratic partisans sought to exploit his international
business contacts as reason for denying him a return to public service. The
Bush administration stood by him, rightly pointing out that it is his vast
experience in the world that would make him ideal for assessing Sept.11 and
the performance of American intelligence agencies.
Ultimately, Kissinger decided that the Democrats' partisanship
would impair his commission's work, and he withdrew from it. Yet the
administration's support of him never wavered. Kissinger's reputation
remained intact among the reasonable and still more lurid among the
paranoiacs. Future appointees have no reason to fear that serving the Bush
administration will damage their good name, save with the reactionary left.
