Figuring out the Failure of POTUS 43

On this election day it seems timely to speculate why the current president is likely to go down as one of our least competent. I voted for Bush twice, and would again if faced with the same candidates who opposed him. But I believe it is inarguable that Mr. Bush's second term has been seen by most Americans as something considerably less than stellar. One can argue about Iraq and whether the cause was a good or bad one or a good one initially poorly executed. But even if you take, as I do, that the cause in Iraq was an important one and that recently we have gotten most things right - there is a strong belief that other elements of Mr. Bush's presidency have been flawed.

As I have thought about it there are three possible explanations. The first is the GORE factor. There is a faction of the democrats who believe that the election was stolen from them in 2000 and so anything that Bush did as president was illegitimate. That is more a statement about their conceptions of power than reality. But I think the mythology helped to create a negative climate. In this sense Bush is a figure, caught in terms of a Greek tragedy. While that explanation has some appeal, I do not find it compelling.

The second is the CHENEY factor. A colleague suggested to me yesterday that keeping Cheney on the ticket in 2004 doomed the second term. Bush needed to look forward, she said, not backward. Cheney is a divisive figure in part because of his ideology and in part because of his outlook on Washington. I've never been a fan although I think the explanations that Cheney is some type of Svengali for Bush is baloney. Had Bush brought in a new person for VP he could also have made some large changes in his administration. I am a fan of Secretary Gates. I think he brings a lot of vision that Secretary Rumsfeld lacked. And I am a fan of Rice. (In part because of what she did as provost at Stanford.) One of the things that has bothered me most about this administration is that many in it have been more concerned with holding power than exercising it. The latter of course requires a consistent set of principles as a guide. In my view, the guiding principle of this administration was often just the 51% rule.

The third possible explanation is the TEXAS factor. I am not sure what it is about presidents from Texas but we have not had very good luck with them. LBJ exhibited similar characteristics to Bush in many ways - although he was a lot more committed to Washington. Both tended to define the world in the terms of us or them and brought together a set of advisors who were narrowly focused. The stories of LBJ journeying down into the war room during the Vietnam war are typical of this narrow vision. Margaret Spellings, who seems to know less about her field and function than when she entered the Education Department is an example of the kinds of people that Bush seemed to rely on.

Explanations two and three are more Shakespearean in scope - the flawed protagonist - and for me they are more compelling.
My suspicion is that the winner tonight will not face the first challenge, although if McCain wins expect a lot of weltschmerzing from some in the democratic party. And the second and third factors are not as likely, both McCain and Obama seem to have a slightly broader set of advisors than Bush amassed.