UNITED STATES: Context counts as Bush starts new term

Analysis

Key features of last year's presidential campaign were George Bush's modest job approval ratings (see UNITED STATES: Falling ratings endanger re-election - October 2, 2003), and the deep antipathy of Democrats towards him (see UNITED STATES: Democratic 'unity' masks deep divisions - August 26, 2004). Support for his principal opponent John Kerry was largely driven by the belief among many Democrats that he had the best credentials, especially on national security, to defeat Bush. Moreover, for many independents and moderates disaffected by the administration, Kerry's key 'selling' point was that he was not Bush.

Despite the fact that both men are first class politicians, this gave rise to some questioning, not least outside of the United States, as to why the election apparently did not feature candidates of a higher calibre. Such a debate is not new: indeed, it was prominent at the end of the Nineteenth Century. The question owes much to Lord Bryce who asked in his classic 1888 book 'The American Commonwealth', "Why Great Men are Not Chosen Presidents". Bryce wrote in the context of a long succession of presidents who, except for Abraham Lincoln alone after Andrew Jackson, have little plausible claim to greatness, however defined.

Concept imprecision. However, the question is usually misplaced since the qualities often looked for by critics are not typically those that democracies reward or that the presidency requires. Moreover, the subject is bedeviled by imprecision. Bryce equated greatness by implication with heroic status in his references to "the heroes of the Revolution". He assumed that failure to fill the office "more frequently...by great and striking men" is a fact.

However, he never explicated the concept of greatness. The closest that he came was in 1921 when he identified the three political characteristics which, he claimed, attract voters in a president (all three owed much to his admiration for Theodore Roosevelt):

• "a strong personality" comprising "courage and energy";
• honesty or a reputation for it; and
• geniality.

Greatness benchmark. Greatness is, in fact, a severe standard to hope for, and still more severe a standard to set. If it is understood as persons of wholly exceptional intellect, rhetorical skill and interpersonal qualities, it is rare in all democracies.

Moreover, history suggests that if an institution's legitimacy turns upon the supply of greatness, that its shelf-life is likely to be short. There is no mechanism in a democracy that can supply greatness in its chief executive more than occasionally. Indeed, by the criteria that Bryce himself set, greatness has occurred no more often among politicians in Europe than it has in that of the United States.

Measuring greatness. Greatness is, in any case, not objectively measured -- certainly not, as in Bush's case, while he remains in office. Perception and context are key:

1. Perception. Mass opinion surveys disclose much about the importance of perception of presidential greatness. For instance, one 2004 poll ranked Bush as the fourth greatest of all 43 presidents (despite the fact that clear judgement cannot be made until at least the end of his second term). The importance of perception is also shown by the changing responses of historians in the past six decades to the task of ranking presidents:

   • Harry Truman's reputation has risen markedly since he left office in 1953.
   • Ronald Reagan's has risen slightly since 1989.
   • John Quincy Adams's reputation has fallen since it was first measured in 1948.

   In a democracy, reputations are contested and politicised. Reputation is further complicated by the difficulty of assessing sharply dichotomised legacy of the kind that, for example, Lyndon Johnson bequeathed to Richard Nixon, or of the contrasting records that Thomas Jefferson set in his first and second terms.

2. Context. The severity of the standard of greatness, and the fact of contested perceptions of reputation, make reasoned estimation difficult. Nonetheless, greatness is rare, in part, because it is typically a product as much of severe external governing challenge as of political will:

   • Had Herbert Hoover, who entered the presidency in 1929 as the country's most admired citizen, presided over four years of prosperity, his reputation would be very different.
   • Theodore Roosevelt was an extraordinary intellect and expansive politician. However, he faced no crisis (and thus 'opportunity of greatness') during his presidency comparable with that faced by Lincoln, or his distant cousin Franklin Roosevelt. During the current presidency, the September 11 attacks provided such an opportunity for Bush. They transformed the political context and proved a defining moment for his presidency. Following the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many setbacks have been suffered and some success achieved. However, it will probably be many years before a clear evaluation of Bush's 'war on terror' is possible.

Governing effectiveness. Greatness will not do. Nor will intellect (at least as understood as analytical power coupled with learning). Intellect need do no harm (as Jefferson's case shows) but it might not be enough (as the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson, Hoover and Bill Clinton suggest). What is required for governing effectiveness in the separated US political system is a combination of unusual qualities, without necessarily extending to greatness, comprising:

1. Institutional understanding. Appreciation of the nature, limits and possibilities of the presidency. This has two aspects: acknowledging that the presidency is weak, but that other participants throughout government and those voters who observe government nevertheless have high expectations of the office holder.
2. Political capacity.A president must understand a key implication of the preceding point. That is, his or her effectiveness will turn decisively upon capacity and will to use the assets of the office and contingent advantages from partisan and ideological supporters in Congress, among voters, and among actual and potential allies and enemies abroad.
3. Temperament. Exceptional temperament is necessary to enable him or her capitalise upon institutional understanding and political capacity to set and adjust the political agenda.
4. Relevant experience. This is drawn upon in shaping agendas and contemplating political action and effects upon prospective power.

5. Effective communication of purpose. This is required within Washington to communicate with professional politicians (elected and unelected), and to voters in the country beyond.

   This framework of qualities entails no particular model of the presidency, activist or passive. However, it does suggest that those such as Martin van Buren, Warren Harding, Franklin Pierce, and Jimmy Carter who lack them, are unlikely to achieve governing effectiveness.