Presidents Bush and Clinton reflect the stereotypes: one the aloof
MBA-CEO focusing upon effective national policies, the other the glad-hander ever courting public approval.
After the 2000 election the press noted that President Bush was the nation’s first MBA to hold that office. There could hardly be more contrasting management styles than those of George W. Bush and his predecessor, Bill Clinton. That difference goes a long way toward explaining the President’s low public approval rating.
In real life, of course, no successful corporate CEO can afford to ignore his constituencies: his company’s customers, his board of directors, and his stockholders. But there are significant differences between corporate and political leadership.
President Truman, about to hand over the office to newly-elected, former General of the Armies Dwight Eisenhower, is supposed to have said, “Poor Ike. When he gets into the oval office, he’ll issue orders, and nothing will happen.” While the military officer has a higher degree of absolute authority, business executives aren’t too far behind. If a subordinate refuses to follow a business plan, the executive can fire him.
In contrast, no matter how wise his policies may be, a President has little power beyond his ability to influence public and Congressional opinion to gain backing for them.
Unlike corporate divisional executives who have come up through the ranks and have surrounded themselves with loyal lieutenants, newly-appointed cabinet heads seldom get their arms around their mammoth bureaucracies in a four-year term, and they have almost no staff loyalty to count upon. In President Bush’s case, some CIA and State Department staffers, significantly tilted toward liberalism, notoriously sabotaged his plans with passive resistance and skillfully timed leaks to the press and opposition politicians.
Presidents Bush and Clinton reflect the stereotypes: one the aloof MBA-CEO focusing upon effective national policies, the other the glad-hander ever courting public approval.
Clinton seemed to be, as Democrats and Republicans alike observed, continually campaigning for office, always on the hustings in front of TV cameras. One of his most obvious political gifts was projecting empathy for people in whatever misfortune.
At the same time, it’s safe to say that President Clinton never pursued any policy course without first measuring its effect on votes, the public welfare coming in second. He chose, for example, to ignore the impending disaster of mandated entitlements under Social Security and Medicare and push instead for compounding the problem with socialized medicine
When the Monica Lewinsky scandal was about to break, Clinton’s first reaction was to have Dick Morris take a poll to gauge public reaction. Getting the bad news from Morris, the President decided to lie to the public.
President Clinton was justly criticized for conducting the nation’s foreign policy as if it were little more than an extension of domestic politics. In his journey to black Africa, a typical example, he apologized for America’s ‘racist’ history, but did nothing of substance to halt the concurrent genocidal slaughter by black tribal leaders. His aim appeared, rather, to have been to stroke the feathers of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP.
While President Bush is a folksy guy who connects with the average voter, he pays little attention to the media, and his public speeches seldom get quoted beyond his endless affirmations that we won’t turn and run from Al Queda. In diametric contrast to President Clinton, Bush holds few press conferences and seems to be focused on pursuing his plans relentlessly, ignoring the press’s slings and arrows in confidence that what he advocates will be in the nation’s best long-term interests. His alter-egos, Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, both project images of aloof policy calculation in relative isolation from day-to-day public opinion.
Right or wrong, all three are repeatedly caught flat-footed by Democratic maneuvers and public relations attacks. The fruit of the President’s management style is his low voter-approval-poll ratings.
With the exceptions of Teddy Roosevelt (1901-1908) and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1920), presidents before Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 had been relatively private figures who concentrated upon being party leaders and executing the laws of the land. Beginning with FDR, presidents became larger-than-life personalities who cultivated the image of a demigod who personally runs the nation’s economy and is responsible for business prosperity, new jobs, personal income, and foreign policy success.
Nurturing that image requires good press relations and a PR staff which can claim credit in the President’s behalf for every beneficial event and deflect blame for every disaster. Unlike Ronald Reagan, President Bush manifestly has neither good press relations, nor a skillful PR staff.
To the consternation of Republican loyalists, the President and Karl Rove seem to go into PR hibernation between elections, emerging only at the last moment to edge out his liberal opponent. The 2002 and 2004 elections validated this methodology, but clearly it’s failing at the moment. For good reason, Republicans are nervous approaching upcoming gubernatorial and Congressional elections.
Karl Rove may pull another rabbit out of his hat, but meanwhile the President urgently needs public understanding and backing for his domestic and foreign policies. Otherwise, desertions even by Republicans in Congress will compel him to repeat the disastrous retreat from Vietnam.
“focusing upon effective national policies” to further enrich the top one percent (inclusive of himself) by bleeding the other 99%.
ibbleblibble,
Now see, that’s what I’ve been talking about. You’ve just made a completely unfounded and very inflammatory comment. It’s so far out there it’s not even a DNC talking point but rather something more along the lines of something mouthed by Kos or Streisand or Moore and AS ALWAYS, you offer absolutely nothing to support your ridiculous claim..
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, try to offer up something in the way of supporting documentation. Otherwise you just prove yourself to be nothing but another narcissitic moonbat.
Someone has to explain to me what domestic policy Bush has put forward that resembles Conservatism. I don’t care how a plan is put forth, how shady Clinton was, etc., etc., etc. No one should. The fact of the matter is Bush has not put forth a Conservative domestic agenda which results in a failed domestic policy. Case Closed. Bush can take his MBA and throw it in with Clinton’s stained dress, both of these Presidents believe in Big Government, outrageous spending, and catering to votes (border security Mr. Bush). Why as conservatives are we so proud that Bush doesn’t care what the media thinks, after all, he obviously doesn’t care what true conservatives think either.
What a ridiculous analysis.
Bush isn’t as concerned about gaining public approval?
Then why did he have to “sell” the war to the public based on dubious assertions of Iraq’s WMDs? Why not come out and say, at a minimum, that there was SOME disagreement within the intelligence community?
What was the Social Security reform roadshow all about?
Why attack the credibility of Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke or can, demote or otherwise dismiss those within the government with dissenting views?
Maybe Bush doesn’t hold many press conferences and rarely makes a public appearance unless it is before the military or some town hall packed with pre-screened invitees because he knows damn well he would have trouble with the questions he would get?
Financially, I think Bush is a bit to liberal. (Ibbleblibble, when Ronald Reagan cut taxes, the wealthier people began to take their money out of tax shelter and invest. The increased income actually resulted in a shift of the tax burden more heavily yoked on the rich vs. the Jimmy Carter years. The tax cuts not only shifted the burden more on to those who made the most money, but by definition it lowered the real dollar amount of taxes paid by the middle and lower classes. A group of people paying a smaller fraction AND a lower sum are certainly better off.) My biggest gripe about Bush is his refusal to couple his tax cuts with decreases in government spending. And I too disagree with the premise that Bush doesn’t try to pander to voter groups. In the last election, I suspect Rove’s decision to steer Bush away from dealing head-on with gay marriage and abortion actually cost Bush votes. Key democratic constituencies include blacks, hispanics, Catholics, and blue-collar workers. These groups tend to oppose gay marriage and, probably to a lesser extent, abortion. If Bush had come out strong on these issues, he not only could have stolen votes from democratic voters, he could have galvanized the base even more than it already was. Being strong on these issues clearly never cost Reagan anything. Basically, Bush should grow a pair of Reaganesque balls and start acting like the man we thought we elected.
When I type comments, the text block goes off the right side of my screen. This prohibits me from catching my typos. Does anybody else have this problem on this website, or is it something on my end?
Also, in addition to the strictly tax related benefits I talked about above, the new investment done by the rich inevitably leads to the opening of new jobs. One of the moron sociology professors where I go to college (shout out to Montana State U) had this brilliant little message on his door :”Conservatives say that giving money to the rich increases their investment, while giving money to the poor decreases their incentive to work.” The fact that someone with a Phd in ANYTHING could post should a stupid statement quickly taught me the valuable lesson not to believe what a prof. says just cuz they’re a prof. I mean, does anybody out there honestly believe that giving someone money they didn’t earn=letting them keep more of the money they worked for themselves? Dealing with the “culturally sensitive” PC diversity celebrators on campus really sucks.
By “should” I meant “such.” (Eff-ing typos). Sorry, you guys are probably tired of me pissing and moaning. I’ll stop.
I see the same thing when I post Shane. Kind of an annoying glitch.
shane – i promise not to pick at poor spelling, grammatic gaffs, etc. i am a very busy man who never posts proofread perfection and furthermore have a few bum keys on my lappy. dont pay it a bit of attention – its the ideas that matter.
mba…yeah, W would have obviously been a yale mba if he had come from a poor arkansas family. with that formidable, oft misunderestimated intellect, he might even gotten a rhode’s scholarship…
ibbleblibble ,
Bush pulled down better grades than your boy Al Gore did.
Gore’s grades, according to the Washington Post, in his sophomore year at Harvard were one D, a C-, two C’s, two C+’s, and a B-. He was in the bottom fifth of his class, and those grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush’s transcript at Yale. Bush went on to get an MBA. Gore failed out of divinity school and dropped out of Law School at Vanderbilt.
mike
the hillbilly dilletante, homer simpson scion of a family whose wealth has increased godknowshowmuchfold since daddy’s VP/pres enabled cronyism has probably been surrounded by clever handlers his entire life.
regardless, the cardboard reverend lovejoy has seldom exhibited to me more than pondering intellect either…
I wonder if it was the grades that made Al Gore put on the uniform and go to Vietnam.
I guess he didn’t have better things to do Huh
(at least he didn’t have a daddy that was going to wipe his nose for him his whole life)
The time of each of these men ( Bush and Gore) were growing up their fathers had very similar lives. Both were U.S. senators, one (Bush) just ended up with a much more distinguished career. The elder Gore was frosting little Al to be President from childhood. He is a third generation politician. Al’s pappa is probably most famous now for voting AGAINST the Civil Rights Act. Bush’s (41) father was the president of the USGA as well as the oil man we are all familar with. Both Bush 43 and Al Gore were fed with a silver spoon, the difference is Bush actually held jobs before entering public life. The fact that the fine folks of Tennessee recognized Gore as a 3rd generation blowhard, a spoiled incompetent politician who only got to where we was because of name recognition, is the real reason he lost the Presidency of 2000. To hell with Florida, even Mondale carried Minnesota in ’84, Gore couldn’t even carry his own state.
All this postering over who was “smarter” is nonsense- the real job of a politician is a dictated morally, not intellectually. Give me a great person with bad grades before a genius with low morals anytime.
All this postering over who was “smarter” is nonsense- the real job of a politician is a dictated morally, not intellectually. Give me a great person with bad grades before a genius with low morals anytime.
Comment by Honker | March 10, 2006
So then you voted for Al then right. The man who has the moral fiber to put on his country’s uniform and go to war must be far superior the full time drunk that becomes a part time pilot and hides out in the Texas Air Guard
yeah – rev lovejoy did put o the uniform…as one who has served myself (no big hero) bush’s daddy’s boy awol kind of chaps my posterior…what a slacker
honestly, cons – how conservative is W? there is a difference between honest conservatism and crony capitalist liar bullshitters like these neocons – they are gangsters….
u may say i’m soooo liberal, but if its hillary rotten vs. mccain, i aint voting hillary rotten….i just hate liars and these guys (bush/cheneyco) are bad – morally bad folks…u need to distance yourselves from them – they are going down…
If Al Gore conducted himself as President as disgracefully as he has since losing in 2000, America should be thanking its lucky stars this pyschotic did not become President. The man has went off the deep end, not being able to handle the failure of 2000, imagine if he had to deal with the real ups and down ( Clinton pun intended) of being President.
Linking Al Gore’s moral high ground on one issue from 35 years ago is rather convenient isn’t it? Bringing Viet-nam as a weak point for Bush with a hero like Clinton is rather insane. I believe Bush was being protected by his father in the guard, but journalist Al was as well. We all know how well protected Clinton was– oh yea, he didn’t even show up. Amazing a war fought by men much braver than all three of these men is the tool used to judge and decipher who they truly are. Morality is seen in wartime, but to relate 20 year old men to how they are morally equipped to handle the tasks of being President is unfair, if it was the judge, Clinton would never have defeated Bush 41, a true Amercian war hero. One of Bush (41) gravest mistakes is his famous “read my lips” line which voters found morally wrong to have an about face on. Is there any question that Clinton’s lies upon lies during his second term would have been his downfall if he was able to be re-elected? This brings full circle to my original point, the Presidency is much more based on character than intelligence. If we take two Presidents, Clinton and Reagan, I believe all can accept what both men represent to each party. Reagan was a man whose character overcome any lack of intelligence he may have had. Clinton was a man whose intelligence was used to overcome his character. Maybe the difference between Libs and Cons is what we would rather have in the White House.
Yes, Honeker, you’ll have to forgive liberals for thinking that the president should be one of the smarter people in the room.
You will have to forgive us cons for expecting a 20 year old girl would be safe in that same room, alone, with the President, Hman
There has been far more damage done by world leaders who were extremely intelligent but lacked morality than humble leaders with moral courage.
That’s quite a leap Honker. So, among all else, Clinton is also a rapist?
mmmm … seem to remember it was consensual.
OK, he didn’t rape Monica, but how about the other dozen cases of groping, forced sex, or sexual harassment. ETC