R.I.P. George H.W. Bush

Post Reply
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: R.I.P. George H.W. Bush

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

OscarGuy wrote:If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all...

so, I will say...nothing.
A sentiment H.W. would himself approve of. :lol:
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: R.I.P. George H.W. Bush

Post by OscarGuy »

If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all...

so, I will say...nothing.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: R.I.P. George H.W. Bush

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

A slightly rose-colored but well-written look back on President Bush from Slate's Tim Naftali. Bottom line: decent, patrician guy.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... egacy.html
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: R.I.P. George H.W. Bush

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote:
Mister Tee wrote
I think Bush would have been a better president had he won the nomination in 1980 -- before Reagan's troglodytes took over the party.
What’s your take on the presidency we got?
He was often described as an in-box president -- when asked what he'd do if elected, his answer was "Handle what comes up." While in current context that sounds divine (if it could be rigged for someone like, say, Gen Mattis to have that sort of regency, there'd be a worldwide sigh of relief), in the long run Americans have preferred leaders who lead somewhere: set goals and march toward them. Bush was far too passive to be that kind of president.

But his biggest problem was, he was inheriting Reaganomics. I remember saying to people late in Reagan's second term that Reagan was born lucky and would escape history's verdict, but Bush was just the kind of shnook who'd be standing there when it all came tumbling down. That particular run didn't collapse in as spectacular a fashion as Bush 43's did, but it was a long and debilitating slowdown that took the edge off GOP success. (Though the electoral college has masked this, Republicans have lost six of the seven presidential popular votes post-Bush, which is something that seemed unfathomable during the Nixon and Reagan landslides.) I don't think Bush I was a terrible president -- he handled the geo-political aspects of the Soviet Union break-up pretty well. (Though you can argue sending hard core right wing economists to advise Shock Therapy for the Russian economy was an historic blunder, one that may have aided the rise of Putin.) And he seemed, as I said, a decent enough man. But i don't for a second regret his defeat in 1992.

As for what difference electing Bill Clinton made, my quick answer: Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Stephen Breyer.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: R.I.P. George H.W. Bush

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
I think Bush would have been a better president had he won the nomination in 1980 -- before Reagan's troglodytes took over the party.
What’s your take on the presidency we got?
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: R.I.P. George H.W. Bush

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote: That said, he ran the Willie Horton ad. I don’t know how involved he was in his 1988 campaign but he bears responsibility for the rise in racist fear-mongering in campaigns.
This is kind of the Rosetta Stone for understanding Bush 41, his party, what preceded and followed him.

Bush, by all testimony, was personally decent. But he came from a noblesse oblige tradition, one that believed People Like Him deserved to be leaders and it didn't matter how they got there. I think he thought the Willie Horton campaign was simply a means to a proper end, and that it would be forgotten once he was inaugurated. Instead, it poisoned the well for his entire presidency and beyond. There are two ironies: 1) Lichtman argues -- and I agree -- that Reagan's second term had been so successful that Bush would have won easily anyway, if he'd just been willing to wait out mid-summer convention-influenced polls; and 2) a particularly devastating development of his putative re-election year 1992 was the Rodney King verdict and subsequent LA riots (he was leading polls, if shakily, prior to the event, but, somewhat thanks to Perot, fell behind immediately after, and never got back on top). You could argue that the cops' defense attorneys in that trial got their acquittal by, essentially, turning Rodney King into Willie Horton: a big scary black man from whom you had to let the cops protect you.

When I say "somewhat" about Perot: I think Perot was more vehicle than catalyst for Bush's re-election failure. The ongoing sluggish economy had made Bush very unpopular; it was only Clinton's own scandal issues that masked that in early 1992. Perot's voters were "we don't like what's happening but we're a bit leery of Democrats right now". When it's an incumbent running, those votes tend in the end to go against the administration regardless (as the undecided swung for Reagan in 1980, despite their qualms about him). Best proof of this: when Perot dropped out in mid-summer, Clinton inherited his polling numbers en masse. Perot didn't cause Bush's defeat; he just greased the skids for what would have happened somehow.

I think Bush would have been a better president had he won the nomination in 1980 -- before Reagan's troglodytes took over the party. He was never the hard-core rightie the party base wished him to be, but he had to try and appease them (which led to his worst moments, like Clarence Thomas). Had he been elected in 1980, he might have been in Gerald Ford mode, and the GOP might never have gone off the cliff it's now clear they've leapt from.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

R.I.P. George H.W. Bush

Post by Sabin »

He died of vascular parkinsonism.

https://www.newsweek.com/vascular-parki ... use-898234


Although I have vague memories of Reagan, H.W. is the first President that I actually remember thinking "I'm an America. This is my President." His passing feels uncommonly prescient in this specific moment when his party has moved so much to the right of him. It was always to the right of him but I expect that to be the bulk of the conversation in a year where we lose both him and John McCain, and we wonder if it can ever move back. I'd imagine not. He had a repressed patrician demeanor that feels especially contrasted today by Trump. His RNC speech called for a "kinder, gentler nation" and I've no doubt he believed the sincerity of his words. Truly. Today, they are replaced by out-racism and fear-mongering. I expect people to write that he served with honor and dignity, both of which seemed pale in 1992 as he was challenged from within (Buchanan) and outside (Perot) his party, but today seem like an oasis in a desert of misery.

That said, he ran the Willie Horton ad. I don’t know how involved he was in his 1988 campaign but he bears responsibility for the rise in racist fear-mongering in campaigns.

According to Allan Litchman, he was one key away from reelection. Doubtlessly, had Ross Perot stayed at home, that would have locked it up for him, although it's hard to get reelected during a recession. I do wonder if the world would be a better place if he got a second term. His policies weren't radically different from how Bill Clinton's panned out. Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution would likely be averted (it's very uncommon for the incumbent party to make gains in the sixth year), and maybe the rise of Rush Limbaugh as well. Maybe Ann Richards would have beaten George W and convinced him to stay in baseball. A world where we have two terms of George H.W. Bush and two terms of... idk, Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt, or Joe Biden doesn't seem that bad compared to where our world is at now.
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”