Washington — The sight of George W. Bush comfortably ensconced
in the White House and of his liberal opponents forlornly shivering
in the cold vividly signifies that the winds of history have
ushered in a new era. Bush II’s control of all three branches of
government and the presence in his government of public figures
whose eminence traces from the “Reagan Revolution” demonstrates
that this presidency represents not just a change of government but
the arrival of a new political era — marking the final passing of
the liberals, so-called. As Robert Bartley recently
noted in the Wall Street Journal, the presidency of
George W. Bush probably marks the rise of a new political
establishment.
This fall’s mid-term election should have cleared up any doubts
that sensible people might have harbored about the 2000 election.
In electoral districts all around the country voters had the
opportunity to rectify what the Democrats decried as a great wrong,
Al Gore’s defeat in the Electoral College. With a boldness that New
Frontiersmen once celebrated in JFK, President Bush placed his
popularity on the line by campaigning widely. The result was the
rare improvement of a sitting president’s power in both houses of
Congress. Now, with the Democrats in disarray and the President’s
popularity about where Ronald Reagan’s was after his crushing 1984
reelection, commentators might begin to wonder if the Republicans
have found themselves another political prodigy in W., as the snide
are wont to call him.
He is as much a man of principle as Reagan. That the principles
are an organic extension of principles Reagan governed with in the
1980s (and that Bill Clinton mimicked in the 1990s) adds to the
sense that with this presidency a new political establishment has
arisen. Yet though President Bush’s policies are rooted in the
domestic and foreign policies of President Reagan, his management
of the White House is different.
To be sure, he seems to have Reagan’s mastery of political
timing. He has the same human touch as Reagan and an emphasis on
values rather than on being a policy wonk. Yet this President is a
more energetic chief executive than Reagan. He, not Karen Hughes or
Karl Rove or anyone else, is calling the shots at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue. Bush is a political leader and an active White House
executive.
The result is that this White House is a more tightly run
operation than the Reagan White House. It is pretty much free of
leaks and of bickering. Equally impressive this President has stood
by his policies and appointments resolutely. This is apparent in
his perseverance on tax cuts and on judicial appointments. After
the public injustice of Senate Democrats’ smearing such perfectly
unexceptional Bush judicial nominees as Judge Charles Pickering and
Miguel Estrada, the President simply renominated them. The Reagan
White House, to its shame, backed off from appointments when the
Democrats turned up the heat in the kitchen, for instance, when
they smeared Judge Robert Bork. President Bush is more resolute and
more loyal.
The President’s loyalty and sense of honor were on admirable
display after the liberal snipes set out to defame former Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger, whom the White House had nominated to
chair the investigation of the September 11 attacks. I was out of
the country during this latest display of liberal witch hunting. I
wish I had been around for the fight. For decades Kissinger’s bona
fides as a statesman and patriot have merely grown. All the
paranoid charges against him, claims of plotting in Latin America
and scheming in Southeast Asia, have proven as vaporous as the
liberal Democrats’ more recent paranoia over October surprises and
Vast Right-Wing plots.
In three volumes of memoirs, a superb book on diplomacy, and now
a history of the Vietnam War due in bookstores this month,
Kissinger has answered his critics to the satisfaction of any
objective observer. He has counseled presidents and foreign
statesmen. He has served the commonweal with tireless public
service. He now ranks with the nation’s greatest elder statesmen.
Yet Democratic partisans sought to exploit his international
business contacts as reason for denying him a return to public
service. The Bush Administration stood by him, rightly pointing out
that it is his vast experience in the world that would make him
ideal for assessing September 11 and the performance of American
intelligence agencies.
Ultimately Kissinger decided that the Democrats’ partisanship
would impair his commission’s work, and he withdrew from it. Yet
the Administration’s support of him never wavered. Kissinger’s
reputation remained intact among the reasonable and still more
lurid among the paranoiacs. Future appointees have no reason to
fear that serving the Bush Administration will damage their good
name, save with the reactionary left.
