Seamanship Quotation

“In political activity, then, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination.”
— from Michael Oakeshott's
“Political Education” (1951)
Showing posts with label George W Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W Bush. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Is Obama too presidential to be a great president?


Undaunted by Barack Obama’s landslide victory last November, Peggy Noonan has returned to her abiding complaint: Barack Obama is not likeable, he’s too formal, and too self-important to fill the boots of men like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and now even George Bush. Last week, in her column "The Presidential Wheels Turns", Noonan compared Obama unfavorably against all four former presidents still alive and able to attend the opening of George Bush’s Library. Here’s how she compares the two star performers:

“He (George Bush) thought he was luckily born, quick but not deep, and he famously trusted his gut but also his heart. He always seemed moved and grateful to be in the White House. Someone who met with Mr. Obama during his first year in office, an old hand who'd worked with many presidents, came away worried and confounded. Mr. Obama, he said, was the only one who didn't seem awed by his surroundings, or by the presidency itself.”

Barack Obama, too, spoke sincerely of Bush’s likeability at the Library proceedings, "To know the man is to like the man, because he's comfortable in his own skin.”

Setting aside the saccharine screed Noonan employs in her partisan columns, is she making a serious point? Are presidents usually more relaxed than Barack Obama? Has his presidency been diminished by his spotty ability to help other self-important people feel comfortable?

(First, we should clear something up. Obama was describing past-president George Bush—a man seemingly enjoying his retirement—when he used that tired cliché about being comfortable in his own skin. Of course, we can’t really know George Bush’s state of mind when he was actually making presidential decisions. Today, memoirs from old White Houses uniformly contain only lawyered regrets and assurances that every one slept peacefully when there was time.)

The appearance of self-assurance is important in public, especially in dangerous times. When a president is speaking to Congress or just one of those Washington gossips that Noonan calls “old hands,” he daren’t show nervousness. Can you imagine a young president in the spring of 2009, asking strangers whether he ought to nationalize the banks or reintroduce the Gold Standard? And whether anyone in the room understood what Larry Summers was talking about?

We say leaders should be relaxed and we note approvingly that leadership is a lonely business. Politicking may be as relaxing as golf. But decision-making isn’t. Getting to the right decision isn’t relaxing work. And it’s lonely—for one thing, because leaders can’t show their misgivings in public.  

After just one panic attack in the House of Commons in the mid-20s, Winston Churchill never spoke in public again without speaking notes. He would have loved the teleprompter. Also, he acknowledged that he had misgivings every time he committed British forces to action. President Dwight Eisenhower smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day during his tenure as commander of Allied Forces.

These nervous gentlemen were not nervous in public. However, those who miss the style of the Reagan and Bush presidencies should at least accept that governance isn’t the same as horseback-riding. Helping the helpers relax isn’t the job of productive executives or presidents.

Finally, would Obama have been more successful in his first term and now in his second term if he were less formal—less presidential—in his dealing with his opponents in Congress and with disaffected journalists?

America is definitely ready for a female president. However, was America ready in 2008 to elect, ready in 2012 to re-elect, and ready in any time in the foreseeable future to elect a black politician noted for being “comfortable with his own skin”? A man, for instance, as inarticulate and as teary as George Bush, as promiscuous as Bill Clinton, or as vulgar and as manipulative as Lyndon B. Johnson?

Would he even win an affectionate rating from Peggy Noonan? 

Monday, August 13, 2012

Paul Ryan: take him very seriously, seriously!


Although Paul Ryan’s nomination was bold news on Saturday, there won’t be any of the drama that Sarah Palin generated four years ago. Sole shareholder Mitt Romney will have no trouble running the whole show. Idealistic, high-spirited Paul Ryan has been managed by his Republican elders ever since he left college.

Laid-back George W. Bush certainly didn’t have any problem running a White House full of political and campaign “giants.” Apparently, for eight years, Bush delighted in calling Vice President Dick Cheney “Big Time.” Advisor Karl Rove, the strategist that billionaires still believe walks on water, answered to the nicknames “Boy Genius” or “Turd Blossom.”

It’s too early to guess what will stick to Paul Ryan. Sooner or later, however, he’ll get tagged with a nickname more telling than “policy wonk” and less confusing than “young Republican intellectual.”

Just because he has a shallow sense of humor doesn’t mean Romney—and the rest of us—need to take Paul Ryan entirely seriously.

Isn’t there something wonderfully funny about this observation by Ryan’s New Yorker biographer Ryan Lizza about his 2010 “Road Map” fiscal plan?

“The document’s introduction referred to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Hayek, Friedman, Adam Smith, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Georges-Eugène Sorel, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Charles Murray, and Niall Ferguson. Ryan himself seemed intent on entering the canon. ‘Only by taking responsibility for oneself, to the greatest extent possible, can one ever be free,' he wrote, ‘and only a free person can make responsible choices—between right and wrong, saving and spending, giving or taking.’’’

Without mentioning Russia’s Ayn Rand, his boyhood crush, he drops the names of nine European intellectuals in a document designed to stop Barack Obama turning America into another European moral and economic swamp.

Young Congressman Ryan insists that to be free, one must take “responsibility for oneself, to the greatest extent possible.” In his cramped world, however, he’s had to make his way—and find his space—within his family business, within his family compound, with his family contacts, within the family’s politics, and in his family’s faith.

He must have read Atlas Shrugged secretly in his bedroom, with a flashlight.

Clearly, he’s exactly the kind of existential free-wheeler that family man Mitt Romney needn’t worry about.

Ryan may make Republican economics a self-defeating election issue. But neither one of them, nor the Romney-Ryan ticket, will capture the fascination Americans still have with Barack Obama.