... RONALD REAGAN 1-27-03
Bill Keller, writing in the New York Times Magazine (January 26, 2003) contended that Bush seems very much like Ronald Reagan. He noted that even some Republicans--like Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan--object to the comparison, fearful that it diminishes Reagan's great achievements. But he is convinced the analogy has merit:
| Many students of the presidency would argue
that a basic-man-on-the-street quality -- a plain-spoken, unassuming genuineness
-- is central to the appeal of both men, but Noonan's wariness is understandable.
Let's concede that this kind of comparison can be reductionist. At its silliest,
it can lapse into a parlor game of the Lincoln-had-a-secretary-named-Kennedy
variety. Times change. Presidents reflect their times. But midway into Bush's first term, measuring the emerging president against Reagan is an instructive way of looking at Bush's qualities and of explaining his popularity. It is even, with a larger margin of error, a basis for hazarding some guesses about the course he will follow, particularly now that his hand is strengthened by a Congress of his own party, by the unlikelihood of internal opposition in 2004 and for that matter by the lack of coherent opposition from the Democrats. I began this exercise inclined to think of Bush as Reagan Lite -- that is, a president with shallower, unschooled instincts in place of the older man's studied, lifelong convictions, and without the mastery of language that served Reagan so well. Perhaps, I'd have said, he is a bit of a Reagan poseur -- the White House being such a studio of contrivance and calculation. I ended my research more inclined to think that Bush is in a sense the fruition of Reagan, and that -- far from being the lightweight opportunist of liberal caricature or the centrist he sometimes played during his own election campaign -- he stands a good chance of advancing a radical agenda that Reagan himself could only carry so far. Bush is not, as Reagan was, an original, but he has adapted Reagan's ideas to new times, and found some new language in which to market them. We seem not only to be witnessing the third term of the Reagan presidency; at this rate we may well see the fourth. |
... TEDDY ROOSEVELT 1-23-03
Richard W. Stevenson, writing in the NYT (January 23, 2003) disclosed that Karl Rove, the president's political advisor, has been at it again--playing historian. Last time out (see below) he compared President Bush to Andrew Jackson. This time he saw in President Bush a lot of the qualities associated with Teddy Roosevelt. Stevenson:
| Karl Rove, the White House's senior political
strategist, said today that President Bush was a populist whose call for
the elimination of taxes on stock dividends was aimed at "the little guy."
In a wide-ranging session with reporters, Mr. Rove suggested that the president ranked with Theodore Roosevelt as an environmentalist and predicted a close 2004 presidential race. He said the Republican Party had been strengthened by the controversy over Senator Trent Lott, and he played down his own reputation as the most powerful behind-the-scenes White House adviser, on both policy and politics, in generations. ... Asked how Mr. Bush compared with Teddy Roosevelt on foreign and economic policy, Mr. Rove replied that the president is a populist. "Give him a choice between Wall Street and Main Street and he'll choose Main Street every time," Mr. Rove said. When faced with a decision whether to call for the elimination of the tax on dividends at the corporate level or the individual level, Mr. Rove said, the president sided "with the little guy." Asked to elaborate, Mr. Rove said that "wealth is too important to be left to the wealthy" and that Mr. Bush wanted to reward risk-taking entrepreneurs. He said Mr. Bush's overall tax plan would actually put more of the total income-tax burden on upper-income people by removing more low-income people from the federal tax rolls. |
... ANDREW JACKSON 9-17-02
Karl Rove, according to a report in the Washington Post, remarked in September that he was convinced that President Bush is a lot like Andrew Jackson. Jackson biographer Robert Remini commented, "there's something to it." Remini was invited to the White House to expound upon the similarities between the two Southern presidents.
In an article in the Post Dana Milbank noted that at first glance there weren't many similarities between Jackson and Bush. Jackson: led a populist revolt; Bush: aligned himself with big corporations. Jackson: born poor; Bush: born rich. Jackson: had an election stolen from him by the son of a president; Bush: the son of a president who, some believe, stole an election. And so on. But:
| Jackson clashed with Congress and the judiciary as he sought to build the president's power. Opponents accused him of eliminating civil liberties and cartoonists portrayed him as King Andrew. The Bush administration has battled with Congress over intelligence sharing and war powers, and with the judiciary over the rights of the accused.
Jackson was a frontiersman who spoke of the "idiots" in Washington. The cowboy-boot wearing Bush often ridicules Washington in speeches. Jackson had a fierce temper and was ruthless against his enemies. Bush, too, is known for his hot temper and for dividing his world into friends and enemies. Bush keeps a scorecard with photos of wanted terrorists and checks them off as they are killed. [Most importantly, Milbank noted, were the similarities between their world views:] The Council on Foreign Relations' Walter Russell Mead, in a book last year titled "Special Providence," discerned four strains of American foreign policy: the Hamiltonian approach, which favors international commerce and institutions; the Jeffersonian approach, which frowns on costly international entanglements; the Jacksonian approach, an unapologetic flexing of military might; and the Wilsonian approach, an internationalism based on moral values. The first President Bush had heavy Hamiltonian instincts. Bill Clinton mixed the Hamiltonian with the Wilsonian. Mead's book came out before it was possible to categorize the current president and his response to the Sept. 11 attacks. A recent conversation with Mead, though, allowed for some updating: Bush, he says, is increasingly pure Jacksonian. |
... TEDDY ROOSEVELT 7-8-02
During July, when news of corporate scandals was prominently played in the news, President Bush vowed to hunt down corporate wrongdoers. At a news conference a reporter asked him if he was in the same position as Teddy Roosevelt:
| Q. Yes, Mr. President, to put your speech tomorrow in a larger context, at the turn of the last century Theodore Roosevelt complained about what he called the malefactors of great wealth and he asked in a very famous speech, 'Who shall rule this country?' The people or the what he called those who hide behind the breastworks of corporate organizations. I wonder if you feel this era is comparable to that one and if you feel you should respond as aggressively as Roosevelt did?
A. Well, of course, he was referring to trusts. I'm referring to a lapse of ethics. And of the people forgetting the fact that they represent things other than their own compensation packages, however inflated they may be. That they have a responsibility to employees and shareholders. And I also understand how tender the free enterprise system can be if people lose confidence in the system it would be hard to attract capital in the markets. And that's one reason I've reacted so steadily against what I have seen. And I don't like it a bit. And I'm going to talk about it tomorrow. (Bush press conference, 7-8-02) |
Following this exchange many critics of the administration, reviewing the president's proposals to clean up Wall Street, concluded he was no Teddy Roosevelt. See Bob Batchelor, "Bush Walks and Talks Softly--Where's the Big Stick?" (HNN, 7-22-02).