predecessor's popularity and to Bush's clear promise not to deviate from Reagan's path. His lack of independence was based on his trouble with "the vision thing" and his modest rhetorical skills. Lacking the actor's gift of infusing what message he had with urgent sincerity, he stuck with the tried and true and promised basically a third term of the Reagan-Bush era, more than a first term of the B a. Further, he was not able and he did not even try to claim a clear popular mandate since the Congress was firmly in the hands of the Democrats and his party had lost seats in both houses with him at the helm. In fact, although he had won forty states, he had actually run behind the winners in 379 of the 435 congressional districts. The incoming Republicans felt they owed him little, the veterans had nothing to fear from him-his coattails were neither wide nor long (Edwards 1991, 130).
|
The huge budget deficit that was Reagan's legacy to Bush and the country further constrained Bush's ability to implement a vision, had he had one. Even if he had been so inclined, there would have been no great policy initiatives because there was no great source of funds to execute them. Bush was able to show some of his "kinder and gentler" side, however, in his appointments. While Reagan used his appointments to attack the federal government, often appointing bureau chiefs who were opposed to their bureau's mission, Bush changed symbols and opted for "the politics of social harmony," in Rockman's phrase, appointing "firefighters rather than flamethrowers," establishment types, not revolutionaries. For example, EPA chief William Reilly, well respected in the environmental communities, was appointed to show that the president cared about the environment (regardless of the little power actually given Reilly in the administration-this was, after all, the politics of symbolism). Early judicial appointments, though partisan, did not see the severe ideological trial that they faced in the Reagan administration (or would later in Bush's) (Rockman 1991, 11-12).
|
George Bush's personality bears some analysis, given his difference from his predecessor and how personal style influences public action. In contrast to the very popular president whose gift for verbal persuasion was world renowned ("The Great Communicator," as Reagan was called), George Bush suffered public problems with syntax, simple sentence construction, and a frequent inability to carry a consistent thought through a complete sentence, let alone an entire paragraph. Further, Bush did not carry the personal conviction of Reagan's radicalism. He was, in Bert Rockman's estimation, an old-fashioned Tory, one for whom great, moving rhetoric is unnatural, even a bit unseemly, one for whom compromise is a modus vivendi, not a four-letter word, one whose best work is done
|
|