George H.W. Bush Presidency - Essay Example

How successful was President Bush Sr. in learning from the mistakes of his predecessors Introduction In his speech addressed before a joint session of the Congress on the State of the Union in January 1991, President George H.W. Bush stated a legacy that is originally his own - that is a "new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal applications of mankind-peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law." (Farrar-Myers, 2001) As the forty-first president of the United States, President Bush has had excellent political background even before he took office I the White House. He had served the American government under the Nixon and Ford administration as head of the Republican National Committee, and as special envoy to the People's Republic of China and the Director of Central Intelligence respectively. ("Like") On the other hand, President Bush had his own shares of defeat. In the 1980 Republican presidential nominations, he was unsuccessful in winning the bid. But in 1981, he served as the country's vice president for eight years under the Reagan administration. And it was only in 1988 when he had finally won the Republican nomination for President, for which he took Dan Quayle as his running mate during the election. ("Bush") Unlike his predecessor, Bush arrived at the presidency with considerable knowledge about the ways of Washington and experience with leading a staff closely similar to the president's own. (Relyea, 1997) On the other hand, there have been several criticisms regarding his governance when people had thought he learned from his predecessors. The book written by Hess clearly shows the abilities of the presidents who assumes the office and their unique personalities towards their responsibilities. Presidents are assumed to have very little knowledge and understanding, as well as very limited skills in running a government. The actual responsibilities of the office are but unclear to them on the onset of the term. However, these abilities, skills and understanding of the responsibilities are often learned in the long run yet they could not escape the part where they will have to undergo a transition of imitation of the previous presidents. Their transition stage is crucial such that this is where the presidents will have to develop their own skills according to their traits and priorities which are vital in the development, performance, and course of the administration. (Borrelli, 2003) In congruence to this statement, Farrar-Myers at the same time notes that "Presidents often are tied to the legacy of the office holders who came before them. Sometimes a president assumes the office upon the death of his predecessor and, therefore, is expected at the start of his presidency to follow the predecessor's agenda until he is able to establish his own course." (Farrar-Myers, 2001) History could not deny this fact such that there had been several vice-presidents who had continued the agenda of their predecessors when they died or take their turns as president. Some of these are John Tyler; Chester Arthur; Harry Truman; and Lyndon Johnson, for example. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) There are also times though wherein presidents purposefully follow the agenda of their predecessors. They come to base their presidency according to an assumption that they will have to continue the same policy since the president before them at the same time followed the policies that the previous president has had before them. It is a choice that some of the presidents like James Madison following Jefferson; Martin Van Buren and James Polk as Jacksonian Democrats; William Taft's campaign (if not actual presidency) to follow in Theodore Roosevelt's progressivism; and, most recently, George Bush's election to carry on the Reagan Revolution. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) Based from Hess's suggestion, it could be derived that President Bush could have at one point imitated the administrative styles of his predecessors before he had gained his own unique style in running his own administration. A combination of the acquired knowledge and understanding from the previous rulers and the president's own personal experience in running the office for probably a few years, coupled with some failures of implementing the same governing styles of his predecessors, make up the best learning experience of a president. But how well do the presidents learn from their predecessors How long will they be able to develop their own administrative style in accordance to his learning experiences based from their practices Bush's greatest skill in the management of affairs was in building coalitions by persuasion. This was easier in foreign policy than in the politics of domestic policy. His efforts at manoeuvres that would push political opponents into corners from which they could not escape suffered from his perennial focus on short-run political tactics for immediate advantage. For example, his pledge of "no new taxes" to the 1988 Republican convention helped him defeat Michael Dukakis. But this short-run expedient returned to haunt him in 1992 after he had broken his pledge. (Theakston, 1999) The Bush Administrative Experiences The world that Bush faced when he took office in 1989 was different from the one that shaped Reagan's foreign policy agenda. The previous system was defined by a bipolar system of strength. Reagan had a clear-cut adversary, the Soviet Union and communism, by which he could define his foreign policy aims. But this system was disintegrating as the Soviet Union was already collapsing from within. The world during Reagan's presidency also was one in which the United States could still use its independent military might to assert its authority and supremacy in the different regions of the world. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) President Bush is nothing different from his predecessors, more so from what Hess had said in his book about pursuing a predecessor's policies and agenda once he assumes the office. Being a vice-president to Ronald Reagan, Bush had also chosen to pursue the different policies of the Reagan administration when he had taken his oath to office. One of the most distinct policies though was Ronald Reagan's foreign policy agenda. However, Bush's efforts to continue Reagan's policy agenda were not limited solely to the realm of foreign affairs. He also sought to pursue domestic policies similar to those proposed by Reagan. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) When President Bush first assumed office, his team was confronted with a significantly new international situation although very domestic by nature. ("Like") One of Bush's significant moves towards the achievement of his foreign policy was that of the American intervention in Panama to remove General Manuel Noriega as the nation's dictator in December 1989. Although there had been criticisms against the Reagan administration, more so with his foreign policies, Bush has basically practiced the same intervention the United States had done with the Grenada intervention under Reagan's term. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) The United States' intervention in the Panama was so much in the same way as Reagan had had in Grenada intervention. The tenets promoted by Bush during the intervention were those of the Reagan foreign policy agenda that centred on America's "evil" adversaries. Whereas, under Bush's administration, it was Noriega, and Reagan's was that of the Soviet Union. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) In the same way that President Bush imitated his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, who had been working closely with his Secretary of State George Shulz, had created momentum towards ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Reagan's Secretary of State when Bush took the office losing his confidence in assessing Bush "new team." Shulz, feared that the Bush administration may not understand and accept that the Cold War was already over. As a result, not wanting to "do anything dumb," Bush and Secretary of State James Baker called for an official "pause" in high level diplomacy with the Soviets until they could assemble a comprehensive review of the international situation. While this review was being developed, however, events in the Eastern Europe soon outstripped the Administration's ability to plan. Understanding that the situation might be better solved through a collaboration with the Soviets, Bush and Baker worked closer with the Soviets instead. This collaboration eventually paid handsome dividends during the first "post-Cold War" war, the Gulf War in 1990-1991. ("Like") Bush's foreign policies were thought to be but a mere shadow of his predecessor's agenda. On the other hand, Reagan's foreign policy agenda were less emphasised than Bush's domestic agenda. It was more integrated into his domestic policies which included a variety of important themes such as reducing taxes and government spending, limiting the scope of government activity, social conservatism, etc. At the same time, the key international events in which Reagan and Bush were able to put his personal beliefs into action are more distinct and more reflective of each president's respective direction. Reagan's foreign policy agenda did collapse during the Bush administration as the world moved into a post-cold war environment. The Reagan domestic agenda did not face such a fate. Further, one could argue that it has survived well beyond the Reagan presidency itself, for example, in efforts to lower taxes and reduce government spending. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) In contrast to Bush's foreign policy, Reagan had centred more on the bipolar relationship between the United States and the Union Soviet Socialist Republic (U.S.S.R.) - the two superpowers in the world. And unlike the Reagan administration which continued the cold war policy of containment that limited the Soviet Union from spreading its influence over the other countries. Reagan's administration at the same time believes that the negative aspects of the Soviet Union, particularly its being a communist country, threaten everything that is good about the American democracy. Reagan concentrates not only in containing the U.S.S.R., but to gain a strategic advantage over them. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) For Bush though, he opted to deal with other countries pragmatically. Regardless of their ideological differences or the severity of the domestic opposition to the regime, Bush's foreign policy emphasised the desirability of encouraging the formation of regional power balances in various parts of the world. This includes Europe, Middle East, and Asia. (Skidmore & Gates, 1997) One of the biggest achievements under the Bush administration concerning his foreign policy was his ability in creating an association with the People's Republic of China - for which is the biggest and the most powerful country in Asia at that time. However, when China was yet an ally of the Soviet Union, both countries were targets of the United States for global containment as its strategy. Perceiving the country as the key strategic player in Asia with a potential of balancing the declining power of the Soviet Union as well as the rising power of Japan, Bush made every possible way to make the People's Republic of China as one of the United States allies. China, who used to be one among the nations who supported the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, was deemed important in gaining international ultimate power for the United States. Bush feared a huge, unpredictable, or dangerous consequences if China would find itself secluded from the rest of the Western countries. China is capable of destroying other countries, and that does not exclude the United States if given a chance. Therefore, when the Chinese opted to eventually cut its connection with the Soviet Union, Bush had instantly grabbed the opportunity of integrating China into an overall security structure designed to contain Soviet power. U.S. policy toward China was largely driven by external threat perceptions and domestic debates over U.S.--China policy took place within a common strategic framework. (Skidmore & Gates, 1997) The cold war ended on Bush's watch, and his task was to develop policy in a world that was undergoing changes as profound as those after World War II. Bush selected lieutenants for national security who approached the world as a series of problems to be solved by practical intelligence. Two scholars see a "patrician pragmatism" in Bush's management of foreign policy making. He was "not comfortable with public appeals and consultations with Congress on controversial foreign policy issues". (Theakston, 1999) Actually, Bush's initial foreign affairs on-the-job-training was during the Nixon administration when he served both as the first U.S. envoy to China and as American Ambassador to the United Nations. Bush learned Henry Kissinger and Nixon's realist approach in handling foreign affairs agenda of "real politik." (Skidmore & Gates, 1997) The war between Iraq and Kuwait was at the same time a foreign intervention that the Bush government had been involved with. Bush determined that armed intervention was necessary to compel the Iraqis to leave Kuwait. First, he centralized decision making into a "Group of Eight," to streamline the decision making process. Then, conducting a personalized diplomacy, Bush cobbled together an international coalition that successfully isolated Saddam Hussein and drove the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. His use of the telephone to personally communicate with foreign leaders earned him the nickname "the mad dialer." He also framed the domestic dialogue over the Gulf War, not around oil and "jobs" but rather as a struggle to stop aggression similar to Hitler. The United Nations, American allies, the Soviet Union, and the U.S. Congress ultimately backed Bush in his endeavour. The first Bush administration was deemed a success in foreign policy matters, but a failure in domestic policy. Bush, who went back on his pledge to not raise taxes, lost his re-election bid when conservatives abandoned his candidacy and supported Ross Perot. ("Like") In inheriting the Reagan legacy, President Bush strove to keep the US foreign policy on the path outlined by his predecessor. Under President Reagan, anticommunism generally overwhelmed non-proliferation as a policy basis in US grand strategy. In recognition of the proliferation problem, the Reagan administration supported multilateral cooperation for some export controls, including the MTCR and the Australia Group. Under a 1985 directive, President Reagan authorized the Defence Technology Security Administration (DTSA) to evaluate licenses in eight dual-use categories for fifteen free-world countries, a mandate that covered items and countries of proliferation concern. The Reagan administration, however, did not apply a universal standard to proliferation issues. For governments and rebels that opposed communism, the administration turned a blind eye to the progress of super weapons programs, sometimes defying both Congress and the spirit of our multilateral commitments in the process. The Commerce Department, for example, interpreted the 1985 directive to mean that DTSA could deny a license only when the potential to divert items to a destination on the existing list of controlled countries was significant. Some critics even claim that the Reagan administration implicitly supported some programs, which undermined efforts to promote international non-proliferation norms. (Cupitt, 2000) While both Bush and Reagan argued that their respective interventions were of greater importance than simply the country at hand, Bush's concerns were more globally oriented than Reagan's. Clearly, the United States became involved in the Persian Gulf situation because of its national interests, a point Bush often made. Bush, however, also attempted to make the Gulf War a defining moment in the nation's and the world's history. He sought to create his own foreign policy legacy to replace the collapsed one left by Reagan. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) In the Persian Gulf conflict, Bush seemingly attempted to establish a new foreign policy agenda to shape the course of American and the world's international interactions for years to come. However, Bush did not have the opportunity to develop this agenda further. After a short period of record-level popularity, Bush and the nation's attention turned toward domestic economic problems. Bush could not put his efforts into trying to continue to craft his foreign policy agenda. The American people wanted him to address the nation's declining economic condition. In part because of his inability to respond to the economic problems in a satisfactory manner, Bush was voted out of office and his opportunity to develop his new world order was short-circuited. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) Moreover, Bush's relationship with the media people in the White House was far too different too from his predecessors. Bush's staff said that they admired the president for emphasizing substance over rhetoric. They described him as a pragmatic leader, not a rhetorical one. He rejected ideological answers to complex problems and saw merit in different points of view. They saw in him a well-informed chief executive who understood the details of policy issues. In their estimations, Bush knew himself well and understood that he could not be like Reagan. Therefore, he didn't try. They also said that, unlike Reagan, he genuinely disliked the rituals of politics and that he perceived campaign rhetoric as a necessary step to serving in the presidency. (Rozzell, 1998) Bush ran as an insider, as someone who had "learned firsthand many of the intricate and sometimes obscure ways of government, from the workings of the Foreign Service to congressional staffs". Initially, in the first several months of the new administration, it appeared as though Bush were lagging behind his predecessors in filling top-level spots, and there was concern over lost opportunities to shape policy. By February 27, 1989, Bush had submitted only half of the number of names Reagan had submitted by the same point in his administration. Reasons for the delays were attributed to difficulties in identifying Bush loyalists for posts, the search for women and minorities, the meeting of ethics regulations, the "salary gap" between the public and private sectors, and "increased scrutiny of public officials' private lives and the time it takes the F.B.I. to do background checks." (Barilleaux, R. & Stuckey, M., 1992) Moreover, the Bush administration seeks to exploit divisions in government to the advantage of the White House. The President has a stock response saying "Don't blame me." In the annual budget debate, the White House seeks to claim credit for proposals to control spending or reduce taxes instead, and blames Congress when this does not happen. When the President took to the base in the 1990 midterm congressional elections, just as his predecessors did, he not only attacked the partisan opponents, but he also attacked the Washington political system. In Omaha he told a rally, "How nice it is to be out where the real people are, outside of Washington, D.C." Furthermore, in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, he stated "I know Americans are fed up with much of the political debate coming out of Washington. It's the same old inside-the-Beltway hogwash." Although Presidents Carter and Reagan also attacked Washington, as columnist Edwin notes: "At least Carter and Reagan had the slight excuse of inexperience and naivet. George Bush has spent nearly a quarter century in Washington, and in his case the outsider agin-the-government pose falls flat." (Rose, 1991) Conclusion True to what the critics had said about his administration, George H.W. Bush had patterned his policies to his predecessors. Several instances were sought illustrating the policies of his predecessors, most particularly that of Ronald Reagan's policies. Bush's imitation of his predecessors' strategies was obvious in the foreign policy agenda that were made out of the same strategies that his predecessors had made. Serving as vice-president for two terms under the Reagan administration, it may be expected that Bush would be basically continuing further what his predecessor - Reagan - had started in his administration. He had adapted Reagan's foreign policy agenda that fundamentally remained as is during his entire term. Another important symbolic link that Bush maintained and adapted was the comparison of good versus evil. The actors in the similarity altered, from the Soviet Union for Reagan to Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein for Bush. But by incorporating the analogy into his rhetoric and behaviour, Bush retained an important link to the Reagan legacy. He implicitly told the American people that if Ronald Reagan had to face the situations in Panama and the Persian Gulf, he too would view the world in the way that Bush was doing. (Farrar-Myers, 2001) Bush completed, and ironically fulfilled, Reagan's third term in the sense that he was held accountable for the weakness of the macroeconomic policies with which Reagan dominated politics in his time. Reagan never had to pay the piper for the large annual budget deficits in his own time. Bush became the unwitting scapegoat. (Theakston, 1999) Several literatures and historical studies had proven that Bush's policies were not his own. His administrations were regarded simply as a replica of the previous administrations that his predecessors had done. Although, there were also instances where the strategies and policies he made were originally his, yet the majority of his guiding principles still lie on the previous governments and administrations of the previous presidents whom he even had worked with. There wasn't as much difference with his foreign policies as well as his domestic policies. This clearly shows that Bush did not actually learn from his predecessors' mistakes. Instead he even emulated their policies and strategies that made America mad at him. From the foreign interventions in countries like that of Reagan's, the domestic and foreign policies, the army's further enforcement that led to the decline in other areas of the government, as well as Nixon and Kissinger's realist approaches in handling specifically the foreign policies. These are just some of the instances why President Bush was not successful in learning from the mistakes of his predecessors. It could be derived at that President's Bush was not as much able to learn from his predecessors' mistakes because he had been a loyal supporter of them. From Ford, to Nixon, and until Reagan's administration, he had served their administrations during their term. But Bush neglected the chance at looking at the mistakes and the parts or aspects of governance of his predecessors need to be given enough attention. These circumstances, too, are a few of the several reasons why he no longer won his re-election. Bush, in his time, could not blame anybody for the failed re-election. His personal choice of basically imitating the government under his predecessors is no longer somebody else's concern. Although Bush had tried diverting from the traditional practices his predecessors had originally planned, yet he always ends up doing the same mistakes they had made in ruling the United States. Works Cited: Barilleaux, R. & Stuckey, M. 1992. Leadership and the Bush Presidency: Prudence or Drift in an Era of Change Praeger Publishers. Westport, CT. Borrelli, M. 2003. Organizing the Presidency.(Book Review). Presidential Studies Quarterly. Bush, George Herbert Walker. http://www.answers.com/topic/george-bush. December 2, 2006. Cupitt, R. 2000. Reluctant Champions: U.S. Presidential Policy and Strategic Export Controls, Truman, Eisenhower, Bush, and Clinton. Routledge. New York. Farrar-Myers, V. 2001. The Collapse of an Inherited Agenda: George Bush and the Reagan Foreign Policy Legacy. White House Studies. Volume 1:1. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Like Father; Like Son The Foreign Policies of the President Bush in Historical Perspective. http://www.boell.de/en/04_thema/1158.html. December 2, 2006. Rose, R. 1991. The Postmodern President: George Bush Meets the World. Chatham House. Chatham, NJ. Rozzell, M. 1998. In Reagan's shadow: Bush's antirhetorical presidency. (Ronald Reagan, George Bush)(Wheeling and Dealing in the White House). Presidential Studies Quarterly. Skidmore, D. & Gates, W. 1997. After Tiananmen: The Struggle over U.S. Policy toward China in the Bush Administration. Journal Title: Presidential Studies Quarterly. Volume 27:3. Center for the Study of the Presidency. Theakston, K. 1999. Skill in Context: A Comparison of Politicians. Presidential Studies Quarterly. Read More