How conservative is George W. Bush? How capable? This week, the staff of Texas Monthly magazine allows Slate readers to eavesdrop as they discuss what kind of president Bush would make.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponWe've talked about how we see George W.; now let's talk about how the rest of the country sees him. The words that we keep hearing from the talking heads are: lightweight (scripted, not spontaneous), arrogant (that smirk), right-wing (Bob Jones U.), and lazy (the feather pillow he carries on the road). After nine months of campaigning, Bush's character and his ideology remain unresolved.
Obviously, Texans have a different view of him. But which view is right? Or are both views right?—he dominates Texas but is diminished by the much larger national stage This is an old, old story in Texas, and one that is as familiar as the memory of Lyndon Johnson's thick accent: We think we're big-time, but the arbitrators of taste and culture and spin decree that we're not.
So, what do you think about his character now? The most damaging charge against Bush is that he seems to want a coronation, not a campaign. It provides a single explanation for so many of Bush's perceived shortcomings: his unpreparedness on issues, hence the need for scripting; his lament in January—January!—about being tired and wanting to sleep in his own bed; his preference for formal speeches over town meetings; his inaccessibility to the media. The coronation metaphor can even be expanded to his earlier life, lending credibility to the criticism that everything he has achieved has been the result of his name and connections: getting into Yale, getting into the National Guard, the sweetheart sale of his oil company, his participation in the purchase of the Texas Rangers ball club, the governorship of Texas, and, finally, the Republican nomination. Character ought to be Bush's strength. His personal qualities are beyond reproach and so is his record of running the government without a whiff of scandal or favoritism. He is the son of parents we admire as people. And yet, just as his other strengths—money, endorsements, family—have been turned against him, so has character.
As for ideology, the question that even his close friends in Texas are asking is, What happened to the compassionate conservative? That phrase fit perfectly last fall, when Bush reached the apex of his popularity by telling the Republican Congress not to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. But it seemed hollow when he showed up at Bob Jones University. The truth is, Bush's record of compassion is very mixed. Even in education, the one area where it is most apparent, he sends mixed signals. His literacy program, which he now wants to carry to the national level, began as a hard-line plan to end social promotion by flunking kids if necessary. Only when his Democratic opponent in 1998 started talking about how many millions of kids would flunk in 10 years did Bush start to talk about the kinder, gentler elements of the program (teacher training, second-chance tests).
Many of Bush's friends here in Texas blame his handlers for not letting Bush be himself. But these issues of character and ideology raise a deeper question: that it's not so clear what being himself really means. Remember, we're talking about someone who has been a politician for only six years, who never liked Washington or the national media in the first place, and who chose to be with his wife when she received an award instead of appearing in a presidential debate in New Hampshire. To the political world, he was making a mistake by ducking that confrontation, but in the real world outside of politics, he was doing the right thing. Maybe an ambivalence about national electoral politics really is being himself—and not such a bad trait at that, even for someone running for president. Especially for someone running for president.
The Hilarious Results of Slate's "Write Like Sarah Palin" Contest
Does Your iPhone Really Need a Titanium Case?
Vice Presidents Say the Darnedest Things
The Golden Scissors Awards Are the Oscars of Black Hair
Slate's Complete Coverage of the Tiger Woods Scandal
The Awesome Spectacle of Glenn Beck's Live Performance of The Christmas Sweater
Reader Response from The Fray:
[Note: Should be read after most recent Dialogue entry of the week.]
I find Ms Hart's (perfectly legitimate) complaint [Wednesday] about the "news columns"--ie, that they're showing an abominable if visceral loathing of Mr Bush--quite charming in its innocence. She seems to have somehow managed to avoid realizing that such an attitude has colored reporting of the Clinton administration for years, of Mr Gore, and indeed of just about any gopher who stuck his head up far enough to be hit with a mallet. The sole recent exception---the esteemed Senator from Arizona---avoided this solely by pandering to the reporters' idiot sense of their own moral and intellectual superiority and even he would have been savaged had he had any chance of victory.
I don't particularly like Mr Bush, but he was elected twice by a real state and he did manage to generate an awful lot of money and support among real people. I'm not awfully fond of Mr Gore, but he is pretty smart and well-educated and any sensible analysis of his fundraising activities needs to balanced against a history in which Republicans outspent Democrats dramatically--it's hard not to see Republican complaints about the Clinton/Gore fundraising as analogous to their complaints about many of the administration's policies: how dare they steal our issues/our techniques?
I think they both deserve to be treated seriously, courteously, and dispassionately. The chance of this happening in the current media atmosphere is about equal to the chance I will wake up tall, blonde, and skinny. Why does not a professional journalist realize this as well?
--Alan Kornheiser
(To reply, click here.)
(3/31)
I'm not surprised Governor Bush could impress the Texas Monthly writers with his policy expertise in a friendly, sympathetic small-group discussion. Most journalists hardly study policy at all; very little expertise is required to impress them. And, there isn't a politician alive who does not look more impressive talking to a sympathetic small group than he does to a large audience.
I didn't see any recognition in their discussion that a Governor's education policy, however successful, might not be terribly relevant to the conduct of foreign relations and management of the Pentagon. Yet the next President is very likely going to spend much more time in each of these areas that in education, all campaign rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
Finally, I had to laugh at the comment that a dropped "g" at the end of the word "asking" identifies Bush as a Texan. Here in Wisconsin we have a very successful Governor who uses only two "g's", the one in "Governor" and his middle initial. I promise you that no one will ever mistake Tommy Thompson for a Texan.
--Joseph E Britt
(To reply, click here.)
Uh, who the hell is Joe Nick? And what is he so cranky about? Am I missing something?
--Paul
(To reply, click here.)
[Yes you were. Joe Nick Patoski replied here, filling in with the missing entry that made everyone else think he was cranky.]
(3/28)