(NG) Timing is Everything: Ronald Reagan vs. George W. Bush (2010 04 20)

What makes a President great – his leadership? Or is it his brilliance? Perhaps it is his resilience and persistence? Why is Ronald Reagan remembered with such fondness, and considered by many to be one of the ten best Presidents in history? Why is George W. Bush, for the time being, looked upon with such disdain? Whether one realizes it or not, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan have a great deal in common. The most obvious is the fact that George W’s father, George H.W. Bush, served as Reagan’s Vice President for his entire eight year term as President. Indeed, for this fact and no other, the two are already very closely tied. However, the similarities reach much deeper than this. They are so great, in fact, that it is very nearly undeniable that Reagan had quite a major impact on the life and philosophies of George W. Bush. These similarities are most obvious in two arenas: personal faith and presidential façade. Ronald Reagan was not at all shy about speaking about his personal religious convictions, even in his speeches as President. Similarly, many historians and political scientists consider George W. Bush to be one of the most evangelical presidents in recent history. Like Reagan, Bush spoke out many times about his personal faith. As for presidential façade, Reagan was considered one of the most refreshing presidents because of his humor and quick wit. The nation, at the time, was still reeling from the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the war in Vietnam, the Watergate scandal, and the hostage crisis in Iran that occurred during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Four presidents in a row, all of whom slowly brought down the American spirit, some of them through no fault of their own. The nation was ready for Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush also took notes from Reagan’s playbook when it came to Presidential façade. Bush was always trying to cut up with the media and exercising his quick wit when he could, because he had seen firsthand the positive effects that this could have on the governed. It can even be argued that this exercising of humor and wit played a major part in his ascendancy to the presidency. However, despite all of these similarities there remains one major, glaring difference: timing. Personal faith is not something that is often remembered as one of Reagan’s most dominant attributes. Yet nonetheless, personal faith was one of the driving forces of his presidency, both publicly and privately. In his State of the Union Address from 1984, Reagan says, addressing abortion, that, “unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a human being, can we justify assuming without proof it isn’t?” (Cummings and Dolbeare, 2010, pg. 549) Later in the address he says that Americans should “find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.” (Cummings and Dolbeare, 2010, pg. 549) How many politicians, especially those on a national scale, have we heard address abortion in this manner? Even well-known evangelical, church-going, God-fearing men campaigning for public office would often not dare utter such a phrase, no matter how deep their convictions, for fear of offending a portion of their constituents. Part of Reagan’s great leadership was his refusal to back down and keep silent in religious matters that he firmly believed in. In the same address, Reagan addresses another extremely controversial issue: prayer in public schools. Being born in 1911, Reagan was no doubt brought up with daily prayer being a common part of school life. There is also no doubt that it played a major role in shaping his own personality and religious convictions. Addressing public prayer, Reagan asks the American public this straight-forward question: “If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can’t freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?” (Cummings and Dolbeare, 2010, pg. 549) What more evidence is needed of Reagan’s deep personal faith? If it is this obvious to the general public, how much more so to George W. Bush, who knew Reagan on a much more personal level. Like Reagan, Bush was a deeply religious man. Like Reagan, this was apparent in many of his public speeches and addresses. Bush often did not shy away from talking about his personal faith. One of his most plainly stated quotes is, “Faith changes lives. I know, because faith has changed mine.” (Berggre and Rae, 2006, pg. 616) The faith of George W. Bush has been written about by many historians and political scientists, among others. In fact, it is the very title of a book written by Stephen Mansfield. Mansfield writes in-depth about the religious convictions of the President in this book, and how it affects his leadership in office. Mansfield quotes Bush as saying, “My faith frees me. Frees me to put the problem of the moment in proper perspective. Frees me to make decisions that others might not like. Frees me to try and do the right thing, even though it may not poll well.” (Mansfield, 2003, pg. 77) There is even a story in the book about a correlation in faith between Bush and Reagan. James Robison was an evangelical pastor who had a relationship with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and had met George W. Bush several times during these two administrations. In fact, Robison was a key factor in convincing Reagan to run for President in 1980. Robison developed a friendship with Reagan when he was a governor, as he also did with Bush. Recalling a conversation he had with Reagan when he was President, Robison asked him, “Governor, is Jesus real to you?” Reagan’s response was, “My mother was the greatest influence of my life. And Jesus is more real to me than my mother.” (Mansfield, 2003, pg. 110) Mansfield writes that, “Robison believed that when he left Reagan’s presence that he had just spoken to the future president of the United States, a man who would preserve freedom. It was now the same after his conversation with Bush.” (Mansfield, 2003, pg. 110) Perhaps better than any other President in American history, Ronald Reagan knew how and when to exercise humor and wit. Reagan was an absolute master of timing, and twenty years later George W. Bush would try and emulate Reagan in his Presidency. Reagan was so supremely confident of his oratory abilities, that he could do and say things that no other man could get away with. Author Betty Glad addresses this aspect of Reagan when she says that, “Sometimes he shoots from the hip, even when he does not have adequate information to back him up.” (Glad, 1983, pg. 65) George W. Bush would later fancy himself as a master of “shooting from the hip”, although he was certainly no Ronald Reagan. One of the best examples of Reagan’s humor comes during one of his debates with presidential hopeful Walter Mondale. When asked if he was too old to handle the stresses of the presidency, Reagan replied, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents youth and inexperience.” (Reagan, 1990, pg. 17) To this response, even Walter Mondale could not hold back his genuine laughter. Even after an assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr. had went awry, Reagan was still able to keep a sense of humor about him. Wounded by a bullet and preparing to undergo surgery, Reagan turns to the surgeons and remarks, “I hope you’re all Republicans.” (Reagan, 1990, pg. 21) Many more examples could be provided to address Reagan’s sense of humor, and the way it put people at ease, but these are sufficient. Bush, much in the mold of Reagan, often used humor when he felt that the circumstance merited it. While his sense of humor is not quite the same as Reagan’s, and his delivery not as trained, there were times when Bush could be very funny in his own right. Bush once said that, “You can fool some of the people all the time – and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” (Weisberg, 2008, pg. 14) Another time, in discussing with Tony Blair the decline of the French economy, Bush said that, “the problem with the French is that they don’t have a word for entrepreneur.” (Weisberg, 2008, pg. 31) The problem with Bush is that he often got his words mixed up and said something that was easily misinterpreted, but often humorous nonetheless. There are several examples of this, and it occurred with such frequency that his saying even became coined as “Bushisms”. On one occasion, Bush says, “this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table.” (Weisberg, 2008, pg. 38) On another occasion, Bush said, in an attempt to strike fear into the hearts of terrorists, “our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” (Weisberg, 2008, pg. 44) While these similarities have been discussed at some length, the one major difference is the focus of this paper. Let us pose this question again: what is it that makes a politician great? Leadership can certainly play a large part in this determination. However, I would like to propose that there is one major factor in what makes a President memorable: timing. Timing is everything. Just think about it for one minute: who are the most memorable Presidents in American history? George Washington, who assumed the presidency in the most chaotic of times when the nation was its least stable. Abraham Lincoln, who lead the nation through the Civil War. FDR, who lead America out of the Great Depression and through World War II. Harry Truman, who caused Japan to unconditionally surrender and bring a definitive end to World War II. Ronald Reagan, who ended the Cold War and brought America out of a dark recession and breathed into it new life again. All of these men were Presidents at crucial points in American history. Is this to take away from their greatness and legacies as President? Certainly not! However, consider this: what is Abraham Lincoln were to have been President when Chester Arthur was holding office, or Benjamin Harrison? Would he be remembered differently? I think so. If FDR had come along when the economy was doing great, would he even have been elected President? If George Washington would have been around during an extended time of peace, would he be so revered? History, fate, and even Providence place men in position of leadership at certain times that allows them to be remembered very fondly. Reagan came along when the Soviet Union was very much on the decline. They would have collapsed no matter who would have been President, including George W. Bush. Now there are certainly other things to be considered in this equation, like advisors that surround a President. Reagan surrounded himself with brilliant men, which benefited him greatly; Bush attempted to do the same but it turned out for the worse for him. But, if the Bush administration would have been in power at another point in time, would they be remembered as one of the best in history? Kevin Drum, a writer for the Washington Monthly, said it very well in an article he wrote in March 2006. Drum says that, “The reality is that Reagan came along at a unique moment in history, a time when the country was exhausted from the perceived liberal excesses of the '60s and '70s and ready for a short breather, especially one delivered with Reagan's trademark optimism and sunniness.” (Drum, 2006, pg. 19) This is so very true! Bush’s emulation of Reagan is evident in many ways, and, in a different point in history, would have worked much to his advantage. Michael Mazarr addresses this topic in an article he wrote titled George W. Bush: Idealist. In it, he compares Bush to Reagan in the ideals that he brings to the Presidency and that, in another time and place, would have worked out much better for him. Directly comparing Bush to Reagan, he says, “George W. Bush himself is famously gregarious, positive, upbeat-very nearly Reaganesque in at least his public expressions of belief in essential human good- ness. (Mazarr, 2003, pg. 507) Bush ascended the Presidency when human “badness” was most evident – the attacks of September 11. Bush’s emulation of Reagan in having a sense of humor often did not put people at ease, but rather made them angry, feeling as though their President did not understand the severity of the situation. Bush’s advisors often clashed with him greatly on this issue – namely Dick Cheney, but also Paul Wolfowitz. Cheney was the epitome of viewing people’s “badness” which was very evident in policies like the one-percent doctrine, and pre-emptive strikes. Mazarr also says that Bush “has an almost missionary sense of America's role.” (Mazarr, 2003, pg. 508) This was evident in his rhetoric when he would say things like, “America also has the unprecendented opportunity to lay the foundations for future peace.” (Cummings and Dolbeare, 2010, pg. 590) Addressing the war in Iraq, Bush said that we are “promoting freedom as the alternative to tyranny and despair.” (Cummings and Dolbeare, 2010, pg. 590) He also stated that, “we have stood for the spread of democracy in the broader Middle East.” (Cummings and Dolbeare, 2010, pg. 591) George Bush believed these things with all his heart, but his timing was all wrong. If George W. Bush had been President when Reagan was, or Clinton, how would he be remembered? Would he be remembered as a “good guy” – or even a good President? Bush was a very well-intentioned man who, under other circumstances would have fared much better. But, since timing is everything, and the timing of his Presidency with his circumstances and advisors was regrettable, history will likely not look favorably upon him.

Bibliography Page

Berggre, D. Jason, and Rae, Nicol C. (2006). Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style. Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, pgs. 606-632. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552257

Cummings, Michael S., and Dolbeare, Kenneth M. (2010). American Political Thought, 6th Edition. Washington DC: CQ Press

Drum, Kevin. (2006, March). George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Washington Monthly. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.drum.html

Glad, Betty. (1983). Black-and-White Thinking: Ronald Reagan’s Approach to Foreign Policy. Political Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1, pgs. 33-76. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791173

Mansfield, Stephen. (2003). The Faith of George W. Bush. Lake Mary, Florida: Charisma House

Mazarr, Michael J. (2003). George W. Bush, Idealist. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944 - ), Vol. 79, No. 3, pgs. 503-522. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3569359

Reagan, Ronald. (1990). The Official Ronald Wilson Reagan Quote Book. Los Angeles: Chain-Pinkham Books.

​Weisberg, Jacob. (2008). George W. Bushisms: The Slate Book of the Accidental Wit and Wisdom of our Forty-Third President. New York: Simon and Schuster.