Grading Bush vs. Reagan's legacy

Last week, Bruce and Dan over at Gay Patriot graded President Bush on how good of a job he's doing fulfilling Ronald Reagan's legacy. Their conclusions were as follows, as detailed by Dan:

"1. Vision/Optimism (A-) In a number of speeches, the president has put forward a positive vision for this nation, particularly its role in the world, just as Ronald Reagan did. And while he has not made him optimism as manifest as did the Gipper, he has made clear that we will win the War on Terror and that better days are ahead for all Americans.

2.  Communicating that Vision (D+/C-) I favored a higher grade because some of the president’s speeches have been first-rate, lacking only the Gipper’s velveteen delivery, but the president’s press shop, particularly under Scott McClellan, has been lacking. The president needs a spokesman who is energetic and optimistic and needs more often to defend the war in Iraq as he did in a series of speeches last November. A good communicator W can be, but the Great Communicator he ain’t.

3. National Security (A-) Like Ronald Reagan, George W. recognizes the paramount importance of national security and has done an outstanding job of taking the war to the terrorists rather than having them bring it home to us.

4. Foreign Poicy (A-) Especially with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, the president has worked to build and strengthen alliances and promote democracy and freedom around the world.

5. Free Trade (B/B+) While the president signed the Central American Freed Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and has negotiated trade treaties with a number of nations, in his first term, he imposed tariffs on imported steel (which he repealed at the end of 2003).

6. Domestic Spending/Size of Federal Government (D+) While the president’s last three budgets have shown some fiscal discipline, cutting spending and eliminating federal programs (hence the plus in the grade), he has yet to veto a single bill, particularly those laden with congressional earmarks.

7. Federalism (D*)  As the Cato Institute’s David Boaz puts it, conservatives under President Bush “have forgotten their longstanding commitment to reduce federal power and intrusiveness and return many governmental functions to the states. Instead, they have taken to using their newfound power to impose their own ideas on the whole country.”

8. Judicial Appointments (A-) With Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., the president has elevated two outstanding jurists to the U.S. Supreme Court. And like, Ronald Reagan, he has distinguished himself by appointing smart lawyers to the federal bench. He would have gotten an A+ here but for his decision to tap Harriet Miers (thankfully withdrawn) to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat and for naming a handful of duds (including William Pryor) to the federal bench.

9. Leadership/Tenacity (A-) Just like the Gipper, his successor has shown strong leadership skills, occasionally making unpopular decisions because he believes he is doing the right thing. And he has not yielded in his prosecution of the war in Iraq despite the constant carping from his opponents — and even some of his allies.

Overall Grade Preliminary (B/B-)."

Dan then asked a panel of "Reagan scholars" -- including yours truly, who was a kid when Reagan was in power -- to offer our assessments. Here's mine (lacking commentary on the categories that bore me):

1. Vision/Optimism: B
One thing I've noticed in my journalism career is that the majority of politicians would be very little without their brainy cadre of advisers. Unfortunately, I feel Bush drifts toward this area, whereas Reagan could always swim (powerfully) on his own. Reagan, as we know, was driven by powerful conviction, and especially by the attempt on his life: We know that he forged a special bond with Pope John Paul II as the two were shot six weeks apart in 1981, and Reagan felt he had been spared for a reason. It can safely be said that the pope, Reagan and political soulmate Maggie Thatcher brought down the Iron Curtain and changed the world.

Does Bush feel similar conviction in the War on Terror? Yes. But his vision to get from Point A to Point B is often cloudy, or at least conveyed so. Culture clashes have hampered public perception of Bush's assertion that the Muslim world wants freedom and democracy -- i.e., people protesting the Muhammad cartoons insisted no such freedom of speech should exist. It's easy for us to overthrow -- and the Iraq war was absolutely the right move -- but the vision for what he exactly wants over there needs to run a little deeper, because Iran and Syria are next door and pissed. The vision has to be more complex, more concrete.

It should be noted that Bush has had to deal with the most virulent left in a long time, maybe because their appetites had been so whetted by Clinton and suddenly their pacifiers had been snatched away. Bush weathered the election challenges from Gore (Fla.) and Kerry (Ohio) with grace, and I don't recall him getting bent out of shape over continuous "stole this election" cries. That gives him points for living optimism rather than just talking about it.

2. Communicating that vision: D+
There has not been one State of the Union or even speech to senior citizens where I have not cringed in anticipation of what googly soundbite would come out of his mouth, or see if he'd accidentally smirk while talking about global destruction. He's had a few golden moments, like post 9-11, but has never been able to connect with people on the plane that Reagan did. His tendency to stick with abstract catchphrases to explain complex issues (i.e. "We're freedom-loving people" -- yes, we know that) also sinks him.

One of the biggest opportunities he's missed is connecting with the Hispanic community, though his election numbers there were pretty good. I had high hopes for him in this area, because this is a group that is largely leaning right yet the Dems still think they're in their pockets. He should utilize the Spanish-language media more (like the network, er, run
by a conservative!), particularly when conveying his immigration plans (whatever they are this week). (Let me throw in my theory here that a GOP Hispanic could clean Hillary's clock in 2008!)

3. National Security: B
The good news -- whether or not the left cares -- is that we haven't been attacked again since 9/11. And it's not for a lack of trying on the Islamists' part. However, Bush is letting the border turn into a labor issue when he needs to be as fervent about it as he's been on other matters of national security. You have drug runners and gangs who are experts at getting across the border and can be easily bought. About 10 percent of the 400,000 caught in the first two months of this year illegally crossing the border had criminal records. Immigrant-rights groups are successfully painting border security as racism or a civil-rights issue; the administration needs to play tough and pull the focus right back where it needs to be -- national security.

The argument that he has caused more terror groups to form is baseless -- Bush did not create Islam's war on the West, but inherited the battle. He has been hampered more on terrorist-rights issues (notice how sarcastically I said that) than Reagan was ever given
grief by Americans during the Cold War. Yes, people were freaking out over the arms race, but now you have elements who brand national security tactics demonic and would rather sacrifice security to spare some al-Qaida lackey getting sleep deprivation.

4. Foreign Policy: B
Bush has made or maintained some good alliances in the critical Gulf region. He's been criticized for being in bed with the Saudis, but Saudis have been regularly conducting shoot-to-kill raids against al-Qaida, as attacks have taught them that they're targets too.
He's made good appointments in the form of Powell and Rice, but has made some befuddling prioritization choices. Granted, he has targeted Islamofascism as Threat No. 1. But one wonders if Reagan would be lending more attention to the current communist/neo-Marxist regimes, particularly when a Bolivarian dingbat like Hugo Chavez strikes up an alliance with Iran, or China engages in stall tactics in regards to Iran's nuclear program.

5. Free Trade: B

6. Domestic Spending/Size of Federal Government: D
On taxation, he has been firm on cuts. But on government programs and spending, he suffers from a syndrome that plagues politicians from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Antonio Villaraigosa -- wanting to please all of the people all of the time. It ain't gonna happen. You have to make cuts, and ripping off the band-aid will emit even more squeals now after
years of program padding.

7. Federalism: D

8. Judicial appointments: A-
Roberts and Alito have both been excellent choices, and campaigning for them was pretty airtight as well. Bush's major slip with Miers was that by nominating her it simply served to enhance criticism that he plays favorites with cronies, as she wasn't exactly qualified. (And her constant deer-in-the-headlights expression didn't help, either.)

9. Leadership/tenacity: C+
This is a difficult one. Much of leadership is the team you put around you, and I think Bush has made quite a few good appointments. As far as taking the bull by the horns, being decisive and kicking ass, though, I have always thought Cheney is stronger and more tenacious than Bush. I believe that serves to strengthen the administration as a whole, but there have been a lot of times when Bush could have stepped forward and let everyone know he was in command of a situation. With Reagan, you never felt like Bush Sr. was in charge. You felt like Reagan could single-handedly smack Gorbachev upside the head --
then Reagan impressed you with what an amazing man he was when his old USSR nemesis became his friend. But the GP lads do make a good point that he hasn't
wavered on Iraq.

Overall grade: C+

Comments

[ned]

How about a grade for being able to ignore a hostile media. I remember President Reagan and his policies were assaulted by news media, television sit-coms, movies, and constant fund raisers for the homeless people. Homeless people who wonderfully vanished when a Democrat came into power. (They did make a brief encore performance when Mrs. Clinton was running against Rudy for the Senate.)
President Bush has faced the same assault, however we now have the internet, talk radio, and shows like Southpark to fight back with.

[Osip]

You give Bush a D+ on domestic spending. I suppose you would have given Reagan an A+. But, if I may quote another blogger at length, "when Ronald Reagan left office in 1988 he was dunning us 18.1% of GDP to pay for a federal government that spent 21.2% of GDP. In 2004, the last year for which I could find numbers, George W. Bush had lowered our tax burden to 16.3% of GDP-- a level last reached in 1959--to pay for a government that spent 19.8 of GDP." (http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2006/03/a_thousand_poin.html)

It's not enough to repeat "conventional wisdom." There should be some facts attached.

[Lewis B. Sckolnick]

Dems run on the Pass / Fail system like Brown.

[Bill]

Comparing Presidents of different eras is a waste of time. "How did Lincoln's horse and buggy compare to Carter's limo?"
Different times require different priorities -- and different personalities.
*Theodore Roosevelt for President in 2008!*

Bill