Bush The Statesman

Nicolle Wallace (of McCain '08 lore) has written a good piece on Bush and his legacy. I think she hits on some very key points, mainly that Bush was unwilling to sell out his beliefs and his "convictions" for the sake of popularity. Obama has done precisely the opposite, and has garnered more worldwide love than Bush ever did. The differences between the two men could not be more stark. And Clive Crook is right, the public denouncement of Bush and his policies by Obama needs to stop. To set things straight Obama should clear the air and apologize to Bush for his strong words during the campaign and early days in his Presidency (the likeliness of this notwithstanding). Candidate Obama was clearly clueless about the state of national security into which he was entering, and as a result said he would do some really dumb things (almost all of which he has walked back on, to the dismay of his fanboys and girls the world round). When it hits you that you and your policies are responsible for the safety and security of 300 million people, you likely see the world differently than you ever have before.

Obama, unlike Bush, is incredibly ego-centric and image-obsessed. This comes through in his off-stage demeanor, during the unscripted moments that I saw during the campaign. Bush was humbler and simpler. He came to the presidency with a set of principles that, sure, transformed to a certain degree during his tenure. But Obama invented a set of principles that he thought the world, and the country--almost a secondary concern of his, hungered for. I'm not sure how that will play out during his presidency. But like Nicolle Wallace, I definitely think it is a liability,

But while no politician willingly sacrifices public support for his agenda if he can avoid it, George W. Bush relished traveling the politically treacherous path. Being a man of deep conviction was as central to Bush’s presidency as any other personal trait or outside event. I asked Senior Advisor David Axelrod once to what extent Obama was driven by his convictions.

“He’s pragmatic,” was his response, and it’s in keeping with something I’ve written
about before—Axelrod’s belief that every winning candidacy is a ‘remedy’ to the
previous administration.

I’m certain Axelrod was not suggesting that Obama doesn’t have convictions, but he was acknowledging something interesting about the extent to which those convictions would control Obama’s actions. It is probably a correct political analysis on the part of Axelrod and the Obama team that the country hungered for more pragmatism. How else could they explain a national security team with Secretary Gates and Samantha Power on the same side? But as Bush’s rebound continues, Obama’s lack of a clearly defined and publicly acknowledged set of principles could become a liability.