Letters to the Editor
-
Style Over Substance
Reagan critics called his presidency a victory of style over substance, while Bush has almost no style. To be fair his "aw shucks" persona is vaguely reminiscent of Reagan. Bush likes to cut brush, like Reagan. Reagan didn't want Bush Sr. as his VP, didn't like Bush, and cut him out of the loop at every opportunity. There is that famous photo of Reagan, Bush and Gorbachev, in New York. The top two world leaders were striking poses, which Bush Sr. stood beside them, looking clownish, with the toes of his shoes pointing up in the air.
It's probably fair to say the current Bush pays about as much attention to the legacy of Reagan as the situation demands. His real challenge has been to exceed the shadow of his socially maladapated father, whose maudlin outbursts were evident even then.
Policy doesn't matter, the pundits define policy, Presidents act, and to the extent that they act well, they gain some respectability. To conclude that we have become a nation of men, and not laws, is made in counter point by Greenwald's article today. In the end Bush (take your choice) wasnt' very convincing. The war on Terror will end with a whimper, probably, and the Bush family will exit the political stage. That they held power for even a little while, you could make the case that they were Conservatives of substance. That neither of them could command a stage, made them more or less irrelevant.