I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but unlike most people on the left,
I'm looking forward to his presidency. Not because I favor an end to
legal abortion, an accelerated missile defense program, oil drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or any other nefarious deeds liberals
darkly predict, but because I'm confident Bush will achieve few or none
of these.
Democrats should cheer up. The next four years should be a time of
wicked fun and great opportunities, if they have the wit to grasp them.
Bush's adversaries should begin by remembering something most Republicans
are ignoring in their rush to seize power: Yes, Bush will be hampered by
the lack of a popular mandate and a narrowly divided Congress, but his
real problem is that he's in over his head.
To be a successful president is never easy, even for someone who's up
to the job, and Bush clearly is not. Of course, critics said the same
about Ronald Reagan, and he went on to become one of the most successful
presidents of the 20th century.
But George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Even those who lamented
Reagan's shallow intellect and disagreed with nearly everything he did as
president acknowledge that he fundamentally redirected the course of
American politics at home and abroad.
The trouble for Bush--and for Republican strategists who think Bush
can simply follow the Reagan playbook--is that not all lightweights are
created equal. Reagan did not know much, but he cared deeply about core
issues--the role and size of government, the communist threat--and his
ability to convey those convictions with authority persuaded Congress and
the public to support his agenda. He was not called the Great
Communicator for nothing.
Reagan also possessed considerable shrewdness when it came to the
daily thrust and parry of politics. He knew how to bluff, when to
compromise, what favors to offer a wavering member of Congress to get a
bill passed--in short, how to play the game.
Bush inspires no one (save perhaps hard-core conservatives eager to
end the Clinton era at any cost) because his smirking demeanor is hard to
respect and because he mistakes bromides like "leave no child behind" for
meaningful calls to civic action.
Bush boasts about his success at working with Democrats while the
governor of Texas, but bipartisanship came easy there because the state's
Democrats and Republicans have long shared the same view of the role of
government. Gov. Bush's good-ol'-boy act will fall flat on Capitol
Hill--if, that is, Democrats decide to oppose him, as they surely will
after this poisonous autumn.
Or will they? Democrats may instead be gulled into passivity by talk
of the need for bipartisanship. That would be a major error, given that
conservatives like House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-Tex.) openly disdain
such talk. Democrats need to remember that a president is not a king. An
obvious point, but it bears repeating: Just because Bush captured the
White House doesn't mean he gets to do whatever he wants.
Those who fear a Bush presidency forget how hard it is for any
president to achieve his goals. First, he must persuade Congress, the
media, Wall Street and the public to support him. Reagan was famously
skilled at this. Bush, however, is Reagan without the convictions and
gravitas, which will make it difficult for him to exploit the
presidential bully pulpit.
And no one else can do the job for him. Vice President-elect Dick
Cheney can run the bureaucracy and Secretary of State-designate Colin L.
Powell and Condoleezza Rice can oversee foreign affairs, but only the
president can rally and lead the nation.
For all these reasons, Bush is going to find being president more
difficult than he expects. Indeed, he could fail so spectacularly that,
like his father before him and Jimmy Carter before that, he could cause
his party lasting damage.
Bush's best hope for a successful presidency is to get congressional
Democrats to go along with the Republican agenda in the name of
bipartisanship. And if that gambit works, Democrats will have only
themselves to blame.
