Is Bush a great politician?

[Sam_Stone]

I was just browsing through “Reagan”, a biography by Lou Cannon, who was the White House correspondent for the Washington Post, and definitely not a Conservative. Here’s what he said about Reagan:

Intellectually, Reagan was neither a Rocket Scientist nor a stupid man. Those who dealt with him on a regular basis were impressed with the common sense he displayed in most situations and uncommonly good judgement he showed at other times. He was a good listener. Though he did not like to be bogged down with briefing papers, he read more than most people realized. What he did read he was likely to retain because he had a photographic mind. However, it was also a mind that which throughout Reagan’s long lifetime had never been exposed to rigorous challenge. As a young man, he failed to form the useful habit of subjecting his dearest assumptions to intellectual challenge. In some respects, he was a prisoner of his gifts.

Now, this is a fascinating statement, and it brings back around away from Reagan and back to the OP. Because I think Cannon really hit on something here. And I have to tell you that it hits pretty close to home for me, and I’ll bet for lots of you. This is how ideologues are made. And if you applied that statement to Clinton it would be about as accurate. Because I think that Presidents go wrong sometimes because they are generally intelligent and quick debaters, and so they have a ability to pummel their opponents even when their opponents are right. Then they get surrounded by yes-men and sycophants while they campaign and hold office, and eventually their world-view gets distorted.

It’s important for a president to realize that the people around him giving him advice have their own agendas. Clinton wasn’t very good at that, and neither was Reagan. Bush so far shows a bit more promise in that regard. Perhaps it’s because he has his father to lean against, and his father has been there, done that, and has the perspective of time to look back and see more clearly what was happening.

This is what Peggy Noonan, Reagan’s scriptwriter (and a brilliant woman) had to say about Reagan:

He was probably the sweetest, most innocent man to ever serve in the oval office. He was a modest man with an intellect slightly superior than average.

So what we have is a man who was slightly above average, with the added gift of having an extremely good memory (‘photographic’, according to Lou Cannon). His memory in some cases could be his downfall, because it let him substitute reams of facts for cold analysis. I think that’s a pretty accurate characterization.

Take his comment about trees giving off pollution. It’s true, but is it relevant? How much pollution? Of a kind that is a problem? Does such a statement have much bearing on the problems of smog in the city? Maybe not. I think Reagan substituted little factoids like that for serious analysis at times. And he was so well read and remembered so many of these little factoids that he could pull them out at will and use them to confound people. But it’s no substitute for being right, and just because you know lots of facts doesn’t mean you grasp the big picture. People like Reagan (and most of us in this forum, I’d bet) who can debate well and remember lots of facts can use it as an easy ‘out’ in a debate. If we’re not careful, we can use that too often and not have to think hard about the issues.

[Kimstu]

december: (E.g., Democratic racists have knocked vouchers out of the education bill.)

mangeorge: You thinking of running for office, december? How on earth is opposition to vouchers ‘racist’? […]

december: […] I confess to being intentionally provocative.*

You know, december, there is usually plenty of provocation to go around on GD threads even when posters are trying their best to be moderate and reasonable, without throwing in gratuitous allegations of racism that they’re unwilling or unable to substantiate. You seem to be on a little kick recently (judging from this and the “first non-white president” thread) of explicitly calling unspecified “Democrats” racists simply for doing things that you feel may have a negative impact on minorities. That’s not defensible.

As we’ve exhaustively established on various school-reform threads, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose voucher programs. There are even plenty of bad reasons to oppose them that have nothing at all to do with racism. So it is really out of line to assert that such opposition, or any other political act for that matter, is motivated by racism unless you are prepared specifically and factually to back that assertion up. (It seems especially bizarre coming from you, who have frequently accused minorities in general of being too ready to accuse others of racism.) Kindly cut it out.

[CyberPundit]

Sam,
I read the relevant section and wasn’t terribly impressed.

First of all Reagan was wrong to say that interest rates had nothing to do with the trade-deficits. Higher interest rates on dollar denominated assets made the dollar rise which in turn increased trade deficits. More fundamentally the reason for the higher interest rates at that time was the big budget deficits which crowded out private investment. This was a point made repeatedly by Reagan’s own top economist Martin Feldstein who talked about the “twin deficits” ie. about how high budget deficits were related to the high trade deficits. Reagan doesn’t show any evidence of understanding this fairly basic point.

The point about capital investment is vaguely true but appears to be a muddled way of saying that the current account (which includes trade) is balanced by the capital account( sale and purchase of investment assets). However this relationship is an accounting identity and is pretty much true of all economies. It is emphatically not an argument for saying that the trade deficit doesn’t matter which is what Reagan appeared to be implying. If the trade deficit is artificially high because of excessive budget deficits then something should indeed be done about it; ie. the budget deficit should be reduced.

In general I don’t necessarily think that memory was Reagan’s big problem at least not till the end. It was more a case of him not understanding the relationships between the details and the larger picture. Hence the desperate and unsuccessful efforts of Stockman,Feldstein et al to educate Reagan about the causes of the deficit and what he needed to do to reduce it. So Reagan might have perfectly been able to memorize and reel out statistics on the budget deficit but he was unable to grasp Stockman’s point that if he didn’t raise taxes or make massive ( politically infeasible) spending cuts it was going to go right up. He might have been able to reel out statistics on the trade deficit but he was unable to grasp Feldstein’s logic about the relationship between the trade and budget deficits.

BTW about Clinton’s compartive level of economic literacy you might want to read the book by Bob Woodward about economic decision making at the White House. It explains how Clinton came into office full of big spending plans and middle-class tax cuts. Gradually he was persuaded by Blinder, Greenspan and others that deficit-reduction had to be his priority and that if he cut the deficit the bond markets would reward him with lower long-term rates which stimulate investment and growth . By and large Clinton curbed his political instincts,listened to his advisers and did the right thing to both his and the economy’s benefit. It’s virtually the opposite of what happened in the 80’s where politics and ideology ruled over sound economics.

It’s widely known that though Greenspan is a Republican he preferred working with the Clinton team than with their Republican predecessors. That is a pretty good indication of their competence and pragmatism.

[CyberPundit]

I didn’t read your last post. Actually I don’t disagree with the assessment of Cannon and Noonan. Reagan was probably not stupid per se but on the evidence of Stockman’s book he was extremely dogmatic when it came to his core beliefs. Also he might not have been stupid by the standards of the average American but you expect the average President to be smarter. Among post-war Presidents I suspect he was pretty much near the bottom of the class in terms of analytical ability.

As for Clinton vs Reagan even Clinton’s opponents acknowledge his brains. Do you really think Reagan was smart enough to be a Rhodes scholar like Clinton? Also Clinton was not nearly as ideological as Reagan as many liberals will tell you and as I illustrated above.

[december]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**So it is really out of line to assert that such opposition, or any other political act for that matter, is motivated by racism unless you are prepared specifically and factually to back that assertion up. (It seems especially bizarre coming from you, who have frequently accused minorities in general of being too ready to accuse others of racism.) Kindly cut it out. **

Fair enough, Kimstu. I’ll stop.

When I said I was being intentionally provocative, I meant to imply that voucher opponents are not automatically racists; I was more trying to show that this sort of accusation can cut both ways.

BTW I never meant to accuse minorities in general of making unfair accusatons of racism; I meant to accuse certain liberals. Thanks for providing an oppportunity to clarify my position.

BTW have you seen William Raspberry’s Washington Post column today? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36128-2001Aug5.html

It may disappear tonight, so I’ll quote a bit:

What follows are the words of Howard Fuller, former superintendent of schools in Milwaukee and now head of the Black Alliance for Educational Options…

"I’ve finally decided the only way to change a large system is through pressure from the outside – for instance, by controlling the flow and distribution of the money. Otherwise, the internal dynamics of the system will make change impossible. It isn’t a matter of individual teachers and administrators being unprofessional; it’s the system itself, and how it is organized – unions, boards, federal and state regulations, mandates, court orders. You have a contract, but also those memorandums of understanding – sometimes hundreds of them – that only the union people who’ve been there for years know exist.

"I remember the old days when we were marching and holding up signs calling for Power to the People. Well, a lot of the people who were holding those signs are now a part of the bureaucracy, and they no longer want the people to have power. Now it’s the institution they are determined to protect. I still believe the most powerful thing we can do as a people is to liberate ourselves.

"People say to me, ‘Howard, that’s naive. You know you’re being used.’ Well, I guess I’ve been used as long as I’ve been black (60 years). I recall something else we used to say in the '60s: ‘No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.’ You can deal with all sorts of people if you keep your permanent interests, your fundamental purpose, in mind.

“You ask me to acknowledge that vouchers could hurt the public schools. Well, sure, if you define public schools as the self-protective institutions I’ve just described. But look at Milwaukee [with the nation’s oldest voucher program – a means-tested program available to families earning up to 175 percent of the poverty line]. We have, for the first time, black churches building schools. We have low-income black people who have options that they’ve never had before; they can send their kids to Milwaukee public schools, to the Marquette University school, to St. Joan’s, to Believers in Christ, to Agape, to Woodson, to the Global Career Academy. Why is that bad?”

[Sam_Stone]

Well, it looks like our points of view are converging. Now we’re differing only in small details, and I’m happy to accept that.

Reagan may have been wrong about some of the details of trade balances, but at least he understood the issues and could talk about it intelligently. That’s more than you could say about a lot of presidents. I’m not claiming that Reagan was an economic genius, just that he had a pretty good grasp of it. After all, he did have a degree in it. You can laugh at his college if you want, but you can’t get through four years of economics without being able to understand basic principles like the balance of payments. But one of Reagan’s faults was that he couldn’t shake his dogma - he knew economics, but only from the perspective of traditional classical analysis. So much of the work that came later, and which didn’t match his worldview, was ignored. I’m sure Reagan could have told you in detail who David Ricardo was and what the law of comparative advantage states, but the more complex issues of how interest rates relate to trade balances may have skipped him by not because he was stupid, but because he figured he already knew all the economics he needed to know. And that’s a conceit that is not unique to Reagan. Every president has it in form or another.

In a larger sense, Reagan was right to say those trade deficits didn’t matter, but perhaps not for the reasons he claimed. If you look back at what happened to Japan, they took a real bath. Because they used the cash from the trade deficits to buy property in the U.S. Back in Reagan’s time, people were terrified of the Japanese, because they were buying property all over the place. People thought the Japanese were going to take over by buying us out, which was a silly notion then and silly today. But what happened is that when the bubble popped in Japan they sold much of that property back to U.S. citizens and corporations, often at pennies on the dollar. The U.S. overall made out like a bandit at Japan’s expense.

And yes, Clinton modified his behaviour after his first year in office. But his first year showed an incredible naivete. Some of his economic beliefs (and especially his wife’s) were ridiculous. But I’ve always given credit to Clinton for both his brains and his ability to modify his position after learning the facts. That’s one reason he is the ‘comeback kid’ - he has the ability to learn from his mistakes and leave them behind. The last six years of his presidency was probably more conservative than Bush’s presidency was. There are lots of reasons for that. One is that he stupidly burned up a lot of his political capital after election day on trivial issues like gays in the military, and on serious but horribly flawed initiatives like Hillary’s health care proposal.

Another reason Clinton did a 180 was because he soon got wrapped up in scandals which left him a bit of a lame duck, and gave the Republicans much more power over him. And another reason is that Clinton is a smart guy, and isn’t really an ideologue like his wife is. So he was willing to modify his beliefs when confronted with conflicting evidence, as you point out. I’ve always given Clinton quite a bit of credit, and I think he deserves it.

And no, Reagan wasn’t as smart as Clinton. Neither is Bush. Not many presidents were. Clinton’s a brilliant guy. Which makes his gross lapses like the pardon scandal and his nailing a young intern in the oval office that much more perplexing. He’s a complex guy.

[Guinastasia]

Look, Sam, first off, memorization is not a sign of intelligence in my book.

2nd, I admit, I have made my mistakes. However, I stand by my point that Reagan-okay, maybe he wasn’t stupid, but he was no genius. He was good at ACTING. He was good at MANIPULATING. That doesn’t make one good at governing. Delegating to your AIDS to the point that they are running the country is not a good idea. Subverting congress, ignoring them, is illegal.

According to Landslide:

“On the formal level, the case is obvious,” former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote. “The executive branch cannot be allowed-on any claim of national security-to circumvent the congressional prerogative over appropriations by raising its own funds through the sale of government property.”

“You cannot spend funds that the Congress doesn’t either authorize you to obtain or appropriate,” George Shultz agreed. “That is what the Constitution says, and we have to stick to it.”

Without that congressional check, any president could use the government as a personal fief, selling federal assets to endow private projects at whim. In the blunt words of the congressional committees that investigated the Iranian arms sales: “That is the path to dictatorship.”

The question is more than academic. The power of Congress to deny money is often its sole effective restraint on presidential power…But exactly two hundred years after Madison, Ronald Reagan’s men said they recognized no such restraint. John Poindexter dismissed Congress’s laws on Nicaragua as mere “outside interference” in the president’s work.

-Mayer, McManus, 191
All right. Let’s say Reagan IS of above average intelligence. If so, he should have KNOWN that continuing to fund the contras was illegal. If he knew, and didn’t put a stop to it-that he even approved it, shows then he was a very corrupt individual. If he didn’t know about it, then he had been seriously SERIOUSLY lax in his responsibilities, and was not fit to be president. What it ammounted to was an impeachable, CRIMINAL offense.
So far, what I’ve read has not impressed me. The man was dogmatic-and a very hard liner on communism-a very dangerous combination, in my point of view. And the fact that he claimed that the Russian language had no word for freedom? Did this man think that Russia was only the Soviet Union, and not the product of more than 1000 years of culture?

Reagan often compared the Contras to the Founding Fathers-if so, he owes our FF a huge appology for comparing them to rapists and murdering thugs.
Clinton had his problems-mostly he wasn’t discreet enough. Still, that’s nothing compared to Iran Contra. I know I keep harping on it, but everytime I read about it, it makes me sick to my stomach.

I still have yet to see any evidence of the man’s brilliance. Most of what I see over at the Reagan library seems to be tired speeches given on holidays. And he wasn’t the one writing them, for the most part-Peggy Noonan and others were doing so.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**So now that we’ve shown that Reagan was not wrong about polluting trees…can we finally put to rest the notion that he was an idiot? **

Let’s not be hasty. A brief review of some dynamic quotes from the Master on trees and other threats to mankind is in order, before we jump to any conclusions.

[Guinastasia]

“Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”
-Ronald Reagan…I’ll give him THAT, at the very least.

[Revtim]

*Originally posted by Dangerosa *
**Bush has done much better than I (a liberal) thought he would. This doesn’t (IMO) make him great. He is exceeding some rather dismal expectations. **

I expect this to be his re-election campaign slogan - “Bush/Cheney: Generally exceeding your dismal expectations!”

[CyberPundit]

“Reagan may have been wrong about some of the details of trade balances, but at least he understood
the issues and could talk about it intelligently”
I guess that’s a matter of opinion. Obviously since the trade deficit was a big issue his staff would have given him something to say. As I said I found his comments rather muddled and only about par for a politician.
“but you can’t get
through four years of economics without being able to understand basic principles like the balance of
payments.”
You would be surprised.
I know many Economics majors who take economics courses and might even get decent grades but who don’t really know how to apply those concepts properly to real-world analysis. Even today Economics is often poorly taught. Not to mention the fact that 50 years is enough to forget even things properly learnt if you don’t refresh your memory.

By all accounts Reagan was the kind of student who just did well enough to get by which makes me somewhat skeptical about how much he learnt.

You might be right that Reagan did in fact absorb classical economics ,which is still very useful as a starting point, but even here I am skeptical. After all he did try to join the Communist party in the 30’s which doesn’t sound as if he had absorbed classical lessons.

And in his arguments with Stockman I don’t recall him making classical arguments but only giving anecdotes about his experiences as an actor in California. This suggests to me that the formative influence was simply his personal experience rather than anything he learnt in college.

If you have any examples which show Reagan understanding the concept of comparitive advantage I would be most impressed. Even on free trade I have read him waffling on “fair trade versus free trade” and IIRC Cato gives him a fairly poor grade on trade issues. So even on issues where good economics tends to agree with his ideology he wasn’t always sound.

[mangeorge]

*Originally posted by Revtim *
**

*Originally posted by Dangerosa *
**Bush has done much better than I (a liberal) thought he would. This doesn’t (IMO) make him great. He is exceeding some rather dismal expectations. **

I expect this to be his re-election campaign slogan - “Bush/Cheney: Generally exceeding your dismal expectations!” **

Oh, no. He’s gonna run again?
Peace,
mangeorge

[december]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
So far, what I’ve read has not impressed me. The man was dogmatic-and a very hard liner on communism-a very dangerous combination, in my point of view.

Guin, I’m not sure how to say this politely, but who cares about your point of view? During Reagan’s term the West won the Cold War and made peace with Russia, without shooting, and without nuclear holocost. Latin America is almost entirely democratic, with only Cuba left to go. Maybe the point on your POV needs re-sharpening.

I still have yet to see any evidence of the man’s brilliance. Most of what I see over at the Reagan library seems to be tired speeches given on holidays. And he wasn’t the one writing them, for the most part-Peggy Noonan and others were doing so.

Not necessarily brilliance, but a broad understanding of policy matters, based on enormous amounts of reading. Read “Reagan in hi Own Hand.”

A personal story. Fran Dresch was a scientist who worked at Stanford Research Institute. He was part of a delegation that met with Reagan regarding a scientific matter they were working on. Fran, a liberal Democrat, reported that after the various scientists had spoken, Reagan repeated a concise summary of the key points they had made.

I would say that one of Reagan’s intellectual skills was to be able to quickly master the essence of an issue in a practical way. This isn’t “genius”, but it’s a handy talent for a CEO to have.

[mangeorge]

Oh, yeah. The OP.
To tell the truth, I know jack about economics and foreign policy. I’ll leave that discussion to those who do.
But, I felt prosperous and confident about my future while Clinton was in office. So did my adult kids and my friends. Seems like everybody was working and making pretty good money.
Now I’m not so sure, and neither are most of them.
I don’t like the ‘tax cut’, and would gladly give the $300 back if it (the cut) would go away. I don’t need a new tv.
And I don’t like the HMO’s bill of rights, either.
I did like the image Clinton projected to other countries, and the overall opinions of people from other countries seemed to have of him. I’d scarf a cheeseburger and sip suds with the man anytime.
Rocket Ronnie was, imo, a weenie.
There ya go!
Peace,
mangeorge

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by december *
**

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
So far, what I’ve read has not impressed me. The man was dogmatic-and a very hard liner on communism-a very dangerous combination, in my point of view.

Guin, I’m not sure how to say this politely, but who cares about your point of view? During Reagan’s term the West won the Cold War and made peace with Russia, without shooting, and without nuclear holocost. Latin America is almost entirely democratic, with only Cuba left to go. Maybe the point on your POV needs re-sharpening.

No, I’m sorry, Reagan did not win the Cold War. Russia was falling apart from within, and if you ask me, NO ONE won that war. The USSR fell because the system was flawed, not because of Reagan.

december, hmmm…who cares about my point of view? Okay…
I’ll keep my mouth shut since this isn’t the Pit…
:rolleyes:

[mangeorge]

I thought no one was saying that the US won the cold war anymore.
Poland won the cold war.
Peace,
mangeorge

[GIGObuster]

december if a nuclear holocaust had happened we would not be having this debate, I remember that when Kennedy compromised a little in the October crisis the nuclear holocaust was averted and the unborn could have a chance to have an opinion right now. If Kennedy had not done that, Reagan would not have had the chance to finish the job. Ultimately it was a job that required the effort of all Americans, and not only Reagan and conservatives.

I do remember that many conservatives condemned Kennedy for being “soft” on communism, but do remember that that softness bought time.

Do remember that the USA did not create a “Contra army” under Reagan to disrupt the dictatorships in Eastern Europe. When the people did rise to destroy the oppressive regimes, the people in Eastern Europe saw the USA as a friend and not an enemy.

In Latin America the solution was to point a gun to any opposition. This means that while there is now more democracy in Latin America the fact is that the Left in Latin America is strong because of the USA supporting extreme right wing governments in the 80’s. Amazing, when one considers that the left is still represed: many sindicate leaders are still being murdered in Latin America.

Today in Chile the socialists are again in power. In Nicaragua the Sandinistas might win the next elections.

Was it ok for Reagan to aid in the killing of many instead of just containing? Instead of sending guns, help the countries to develop economically like in Western Europe so the people would get in line willingly?

What I saw in Reagan was a total lack of patience towards Latin America.

“Who cares what you think”

George W. Bush.

Are the conservatives projecting something here, december?

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by GIGObuster *
I do remember that many conservatives condemned Kennedy for being “soft” on communism, but do remember that that softness bought time.

Maybe if the Kennedy hadn’t come across as a weakling in the Vienna Summit with Kruschev, and maybe if that impression of weakness hadn’t been compounded by the jelly-spined bumbling of the Bay of Pigs, the Soviets wouldn’t have put missiles in Cuba in the first place.

[GIGObuster]

Now is the time to get out of the hijack and get back to Bush: Don’t you guys think that the weakness that everybody can sense out of Bush will be the catalyst for many debacles in the near future, just like Kennedy?

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by GIGObuster *
**Now is the time to get out of the hijack and get back to Bush: Don’t you guys think that the weakness that everybody can sense out of Bush will be the catalyst for many debacles in the near future, just like Kennedy? **

Who’s “everybody”? House Democrats? Putin? Jiang Zemin (“we will do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan”)? Amazing that Bush can have the nerve to completely disregard world opinion and his domestic opponents in pursuing his own dangerous agenda, and yet at the same time radiate this obvious sense of “weakness” for everyone to see.