Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

A fateful twist in the Bush family's political plans

By MARTIN DYCKMAN
Published September 11, 2005

Many people are ready to rank George W. Bush among the worst of American presidents, but it is a temptation to be resisted. It is premature by half a century or so. History is hindsight, and we may actually be out of Iraq by then.

Moreover, all politics are relative, and we could always do worse. Liberals who thought it couldn't get worse than Ronald Reagan would be happy to have him back. Reagan's only wrong war, after all, was Grenada. Even if it was only because he had to, Reagan appreciated the virtue and necessity of compromise, which Bush plainly considers a vice. Reagan also had a keener sense of presidential dignity; he would not have made small talk about rebuilding a senator's waterfront home while uncounted corpses rotted in the ruins of a great city.

When 73 scholars were surveyed to pick America's best and worst presidents five years ago, none who came after Franklin Roosevelt made either list. The "modern" presidents were rated only for their effectiveness or lack of it, which was easier to judge than their enduring influence on history.

The best were considered to be Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson. Rated worst were James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant.

Bush's legacy would profit by those examples. Except for Jefferson, the best all believed in government as a constructive force and even Jefferson opted to make the United States a continental power when Napoleon offered him Louisiana at a bargain price. The worst presidents were either weak and visionless, for which a civil war and a mishandled reconstruction resulted, or were insensitive to the corruption around them.

When history does pronounce its verdict on Bush, there will be some tantalizing what-ifs concerning the two Florida elections that resulted in his presidency.

Yes, two. Bush would not have been the nominee, let alone the beneficiary of a dubious 537-vote margin in a pivotal state, had his brother Jeb become governor of that state when he ran the first time. The 1994 campaign was one of Florida's closer elections; Jeb Bush lost it by only 63,940 votes out of more than 4-million. Lawton Chiles' winning percentage of 50.8 was the lowest for a governor since Florida got serious about two-party politics.

"Would have," "could have," and "should have" are often said to be aimless pursuits. But it is intriguing to imagine alternative history had the incumbent not come up with his "He-Coon" metaphor to end the last debate or had Jeb's campaign not blown its lead by raising a death-penalty issue widely perceived as unfair.

Two Bushes ran for governor in 1994. The Floridian was expected to win, the Texan to lose. The upsets undid the grand dynastic plan, which was for Jeb, not George, to eventually redeem their father's defeat.

How that may have changed history will be debated at length when and if Jeb changes his mind about running for president. It won't be in 2008; if ever, it will depend on whether we are out of Iraq, whether we leave it as a viable nation or as the theater of a savage and insoluble civil war, and whether his brother's domestic legacy consists of a dysfunctional government, a bankrupt treasury, a society polarized by race and extremes of wealth and poverty, and a malignantly reactionary Supreme Court.

It would be Jeb's fate or fortune as a candidate to be compared not only to his opponents but to his brother. Some similarities are obvious. He's as ideological as the president, if not more so, and just as stubborn about accepting unwelcome advice. He has shown the same tendency to appoint true believers and political loyalists to offices that call instead for experience and professionalism, although there are signs that he may have learned better.

But he's also more intelligent and astute. I don't think he would have waged an unprovoked war just to show how tough he is. And it hardly needs to be said how much better Jeb inspires public confidence in times of disaster. This is one of the ineffable and indispensable qualities of leadership.

One of the great ironies of our time is that a libertarian governor who rhapsodized about emptying buildings of state workers found himself commanding those same workers so effectively in the face of natural disasters. Long before Katrina, those hurricanes taught what should have been an obvious lesson about the essentiality of good government.

One Bush took it to heart. The other didn't.

Martin Dyckman's e-mail address is madyckman@verizon.net

[Last modified September 10, 2005, 00:42:02]