Suddenly, totally, George Bush is vulnerable. After two years of being in the stratosphere of public opinion polls, Bush and his advisers appear almost panic-stricken in the wake of recent election returns. To John Sununu, the tidal wave that washed over the Thornburgh campaign must have appeared eerily similar to the one that inundated Bob Dole in the 1988 New Hampshire primary. And Sununu can still read a pollster`s score card. Hence, the cancellation of the Asian trip and the abandonment of presidential restraint regarding David Duke.
Although the Democrats are still blinking with disbelief at their new-found good fortune, the Bush team is concerned that the American public is turning against the most successful president in the global arena in modern history.
What has happened? Is it merely the cumulative effects of economic recession or is some less visible historical dynamic at work? Have history and personality combined to make both the imperial presidency and its most successful practitioner obsolete?
In 1945 the voters of Great Britain unceremoniously removed Winston Churchill from office while the rubble of Berlin was still smoldering. The war-weary British people overwhelmingly preferred a modest little man with a mustache to the larger-than-life savior of the British Empire. The time for
”blood, toil, tears and sweat” was over. All the British voters wanted was a cozy flat, a safe job and a warm pint of ale.
A similar situation is now crystallizing in America. George Bush emerged as the hero of Operation Desert Storm, the conqueror of Manuel Noriega and the magnanimous victor in the Cold War. He even cajoled the Israelis and the Syrians to sit down across a table and talk to each other. Yet, despite these personal achievements the president is in jeopardy.
The same presidential tours that once sent Bush`s approval ratings skyrocketing are now viewed as proof positive of his callous disregard for problems on the home front. What brought applause only yesterday is the subject of catcalls today. Like Churchill in 1945, Bush in 1992 faces the prospect of massive public disaffection while at the very pinnacle of success. Where does the fault lie, and can Bush avoid the fate of his illustrious predecessor? The answer is to be found in that peculiar combination of fortune and persona-of fate and character-that so fascinated Machiavelli some 500 years ago.
For three quarters of U.S. history isolationist sentiments prevailed among the American people. Post-World War II activism rested on the three pillars of American economic leadership, U.S. military dominance and an expansionist communist ideology. This triad no longer exists. Even our stunning military success in the Persian Gulf war, exactly because it was so short and surgical, made it impossible for any amount of presidential hyperbole to transform Saddam Hussein`s Iraq into a new Evil Empire.
Just as the fall of Berlin persuaded the British public that the war was over and the British Empire no longer needed defending, the liberation of Kuwait convinced the American people that the Cold War was truly over and that it was time to focus attention on domestic issues. It is ironic that George Bush, the president whose public life since 1941 has been most closely intertwined with America`s international destiny, should triumphantly conduct a foreign venture that would make that very destiny and his own career appear irrelevant to the American people.
George Bush has just 12 months to transform his persona or he risks defeat against even an uncharismatic Democratic nominee. Like the ”New Nixon” in 1968, we can anticipate either a ”New Bush” or a genuine horse race in 1992.
The problem is that the ”Old Bush” is of two minds, or rather of two distinct public personalities. The George Bush who speaks to foreign affairs is an utterly convinced and convincing advocate of the necessity for American political and military leadership of the world community. In the international arena, George Bush is entirely at home with his vocation, his audience and-most of all-himself.
However, when the issue is domestic affairs, a different persona emerges and the artifice and discomfort of the man are visible for all to see. There are moments when Bush`s distress in discussing contentious social issues like abortion appear to rival Michael Dukakis` misbegotten ”photo op” ride in an Army tank.
Two recent presidential speeches-one in Madrid, the other in Houston-reveal a completely different personal style and attitude toward foreign and domestic affairs. In terms of actual behavior-what we see of his self-presentation-Bush presents conflicting images.
President Bush`s opening remarks at the Middle East peace conference were presented in such a manner that you felt the words bubble up from deep inside him; he insinuated his own self in the warp and woof that attach each word to the over-arching idea that ”peace is possible.” Bush`s patrician ”I know best” attitude is well suited to foreign policy where a good resume and long years of experience count more than ideas. Leadership for George Bush is a matter of an inherent devotion to leadership per se; content is an aside. In this realm, advocacy can be arbitrary, calculated, pragmatic. No genuine self need be perceived behind the mask of the diplomat. George Bush is comfortable in this world.
In Houston, while selling his domestic accomplishments and attacking Congress, Bush sounded insincere and artificial. His pitch was raised, his cadence was choppy, his sentences were incomplete, his words and gestures were misaligned. Bush was trying to appear involved, but the emotion just was not there. Both his style of self-presentation and his political machinations compound the image of a man with no fixed beliefs. Politicians can be mercurial but not capricious; they must always appear sincere.
In the world inhabited by domestic issues, ideas count. Intensity of commitment to those ideas comes from an enduring philosophy that stands behind them. This same commitment is what you bargain for and what you trade away in the bazaar of domestic politics. Without any firm beliefs behind his domestic agenda, George Bush is perceived as having nothing of value to bring to the table. The ante in this game calls for something more than a resume.
Like Plato`s ”Guardians,” who lead by virtue of their superior background and wisdom, George Bush perceives himself to be a wise patriarch who ”knows better.” Why else does he continue to lecture the American public that there really is no recession?
Like the father of Jane and Michael Banks in ”Mary Poppins” (his name was George, too), Bush is most natural when applying ”a firm but gentle hand as lord of the castle.” Otherwise he is at a loss-not as president, but as person. This manner has helped him succeed in matters of foreign policy, but it just doesn`t work domestically.
Like Churchill, will Bush`s foreign policy achievements undermine his presidency? Can he change his public persona to suit changes in domestic fortune? The coming months will tell the tale.
