George Bush is confident enough to grab a line from Mae West, retelling a time when the brassy actress was asked what she wanted to be remembered for.
”Everything,” she replied.
”Well, my goal is a little more modest,” the nation`s 41st president confessed with his lopsided grin. Indeed it is. Modesty, minor triumphs and a few setbacks have marked the start of the Bush era in American government.
If Americans wanted Bush to paint broad visions of the future across the national firmament, he has steadfastly refused to do so. His imagination does not soar, at least in public. For nearly 100 days, he has seemed determined not to reinvent the policy wheels fashioned by Ronald Reagan, but to smooth out the edges.
Ever since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Americans have taken stock of their new presidents by looking at what they accomplished in their first 100 days. It is viewed as a time to get some feel for the breadth and depth of the leader, to glimpse his master plans and, often enough, to see how he reacts in crisis.
But Bush does not want to be be measured that way.
”I don`t even think in terms of 100 days because we aren`t radically shifting things,” the President said Thursday as he sat outside the Oval Office on a crisp spring morning, framed by wonderful clusters of red tulips. Bush compared himself again to Martin Van Buren, the last vice president who succeeded his own presi-
dent to the Oval Office.
”We didn`t come in here throwing the rascals out totry to do something, correct all the ills of the world in 100 days,” he said, not worried about comparisons to that lackluster, one-term 19th Century presidency.
So far, the pace of Bush`s White House is not only a reflection of the President`s style, but a sign of the times. His first 100 days in office, which will be marked next Saturday, have been unlike most presidential startups in the last half-century.
Neither the nation nor the world is in crisis, and that, in large part, has taken away the stage on which we have often watched our presidents perform.
”We do think about presidential greatness a lot in terms of how they deal with crisis,” said Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution scholar who specializes in the executive branch of government. ”And this presidency is, so far, relatively without crisis.”
Without a major crisis, ”prudent” has become the most popular word around the White House, whether people are referring to attacking the Alaskan oil spill or negotiating with the Soviet Union.
”I think we`ve got a prudent foreign policy.” the President said in making his own assessment of his first three months in office. ”I don`t feel a need for some precipitous and dramatic initiative to salve the consciences of those who are saying you`ve got to do something in 100 days.”
He has dabbled in many areas, mostly fulfilling campaign pledges to a degree possible under budget constraints. This week he will travel around the country, stopping in Chicago on Monday to talk to the American Newspaper Publishers Association and to promote his views and agenda.
But will Bush be known as the Education President, as he suggested during the election campaign? Will he be Bush the Environmental President? Perhaps Bush the Savings and Loan Bailout President? Or will historians discuss Bush the Deficit-Reduction Plan President?
He has attempted to deal in each area. As the Education President, he proposed a $441 million addition to federal spending for education, but it amounts to little more than moving existing money around.
As the Environmental President, Bush took the advice of perhaps less political agency heads and waited nearly 10 days before ordering a federal response to the Exxon Corp. oil spill in Alaska.
While Reagan allowed economic troubles to brew, such as the crisis in the savings and loan industry, Bush stepped in quickly to at least bandage the inherited problem. And he was able to get the Democratic leadership in Congress to agree at least on the need for a deficit goal, though both sides agreed not to tackle the really hard problems of deciding where to cut.
At the same time, much of Bush`s first 100 days was dominated by the fight over his nomination of former Sen. John Tower of Texas as defense secretary, a fight he lost.
While bridling at comparisons and not allowing any public criticism of his predecessor, Bush has distanced himself in subtle ways from Reagan. For instance, he has eagerly courted congressmen on a bipartisan as well as a first-name basis.
In perhaps his boldest break, Bush negotiated with Congress a nonmilitary aid package to fund the Nicaraguan contras for one more year. But it represents, in effect, mustering-out pay, and it dispenses with Reagan`s favorite guerrilla group.
Not even Roosevelt, whose inauguration in 1933 became the yardstick for future presidential activity, was subjected to the 100-days measurement at the time. Only later did historians and journalists look back, see all that he had accomplished and begin ticking off time for each new president. But partly because of those Great Depression times, Roosevelt set a standard almost impossible to duplicate.
”When Roosevelt came in the country was in a great domestic crisis. There were statehouses being occupied by mobs,” said William Manchester, historian and author of ”The Glory and the Dream,” a history of the U.S. from 1932 to 1972.
By Day Two, Roosevelt had called a special session of Congress. On Day Three, he declared a bank holiday. Over the next three months, FDR ended the gold standard, created the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Civilian Conservation Corps, signed an emergency banking act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Farm Credit Act and a slew of other bills, some of which were written in a single copy that congressional committees heard read aloud before passing them.
Of Bush, Manchester said: ”They may see him-and this is probably his hope-as a man who works carefully, somewhat slowly, but doesn`t make big mistakes. I would like to see more activity. To tell you the truth, I find myself not thinking about Bush very much. And I think that`s true of the President-watchers around the country.”
”If people expected George Bush to move in a drastically different direction, they were mistaken,” White House Chief of Staff John Sununu said in his office last week. Putting the best face on Bush`s relaxed manner, Sununu said, ” . . . So you have to decide whether you want a president to be effective or showy. This President has chosen to be effective.”
Bush`s vision appears to be one of a scaled-back presidency. The question of competency versus ideology swirled around the election campaign, and Bush has tried to blend the two. Results are mixed.
”He can rightly make the claim that he`s doing just what he said he was going to do, and he`s acting just as the American people want him to act,”
said Hess.
A CBS News/New York Times poll released last Wednesday showed a 61 percent approval rating for Bush in overall job performance, similar to a February poll. But when asked if Bush was working hard to solve the nation`s problems, 46 percent of respondents said no.
As a presidential candidate, Hess added, Bush ”did not make any great promises and he`s made a sort of down payment on the promises he`s made. He was elected because people didn`t want change, they did want continuity.”
The nation is still wondering about Bush. His personal style is certainly inviting and warm, but the questions of substance are still not answered.
”Each president has different strong and weak points,” Hess said. ”He
(Bush) is not going to be remembered as the Great Communicator. So he has to find ways to get people to notice his other virtues.”
