It's not always fair weather - criticism of George Bush - editorial

National Review, Sept 29, 1989 by John O'Sullivan

If most Americans saw President Reagan as a genial grandfather, NATIONAL REviEW looked upon him as a

favorite son. We had sent him out into the world with a firm set of conservative convictions and we watched his progress with a nervous paternal fondness. If criticisms were deserved, we made them, but perhaps their edge was blunted by that affection. And, anyway, we had reason to cheer most of the time.

No such inhibitions restrain us in relation to President Bush. He is from the same conservative family, to be sure, but from a distant branch which has done well for itself and occasionally puts on airs. Also cousin George is constantly held up to us as a model of behavior by the nagging maiden aunts of the media. He's so polite, so well-behaved, so pragmatic. It doesn't endear him. So we start out with a slightly grudging attitude, prepared to rally round in a fight but chiding in the meantime, foul-weather friends but fair-weather critics.

For the moment, the President can afford to regard our criticism lightly. All men speak well of him. (But see Luke, Chapter 6, Verse 26.) And on two vital questions, that good opinion seems well-deserved.

President Bush has maneuvered so skillfully on economic policy that last year's consensus in favor of a tax hike has been replaced by this year's consensus in favor of a capital-gains tax cut. Other economic news has confirmed this anti-tax wisdom. The economy continues to boom modestly, inflation is under control, the long predicted recession has still not been sighted. Similarly, Mr. Bush has maintained an aloof caution as the Soviet Union goes deeper into its protracted crisis, neither bailing out Gorbachev with massive "loans" nor seeking to exploit the anti-Soviet

tensions in Eastern Europe and the Baltic in a way that would give the Politburo a pretext for intervention. As a result, Mr. Gorbachev's early public-relations success in Western Europe is every day undermined by the increasing chaos of the Soviet economy and empire.

Note, however, that these successes are the product of prudent inaction rather than of action. Where boldness is needed, the Bush Administration is steadfastly risk-averse.

When the Supreme Court adopted a strict interpretation of three civil rights statutes, the Administration shrank nervously from endorsement. Instead it announced that the Court's decisions made no real difference but that, if they turned out to do so, then the Congress could always correct them by legislation. In effect, it is inviting such legislation, which it plainly lacks the nerve to veto.

When William Lucas was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Bush Administration was urged to give him a recess appointment. This exercise of an undoubted presidential power would have warned Congress off its itchy interference

with presidential appointments and given fresh heart to black conservatives. Instead, Mr. Lucas was fobbed off with a token job.

When pro-Iranian terrorists killed an American hostage in retaliation for the Israeli seizure of a terrorist guru, the Administration's first reaction was to criticize Israel for annoying the terrorists. Its present policy is to do nothing unless more Americans are killed.

Since Mr. Bush has an exemplary record of courage in war, business, and the last election, what are the underlying causes of this timidity.9

The first is the drive for short-term popularity as recorded in the opinion polls. Yet voters do not want their leaders to be nice, amiable people who would make good neighbors, but tough, competent people who will defend their interests in a rough world. The snag is that such authority can only be achieved at some cost in shortterm popularity. Ronald Reagan established his authority by two early decisions: sacking the PATCO strikers and supporting the Federal Reserve's tight monetary control. Unpopular at the time, they enabled him to secure labor peace, defeat inflation, and win a thousand other battles without having to fight at all.

The second miscalculation is Mr. Bush's ardent wooing of Congress. For Miss Bi-partisanship is a flirt: she's always more interested in the fellow who's less interested in her. So, in the natural order of things, he will get her on his terms. Vide the deal on the Contras, which is a bi-partisan sharing of the responsibility for doing them in. Or to put it in Hegelian terms (and Hegel is very fashionable in today's Washington), the more you aim directly at the Synthesis, the more it will resemble the other fellow's Antithesis and the less your own poor neglected Thesis.

For the success of the Reagan Presidency was built upon a grand central theme-the restoration of American power-which gave dramatic popular appeal to the Administration's policies. What great theme does Mr. Bush seek to communicate? Decency.9 Good intentions? Honesty in government? All worthy aims, but will they be enough to rally supporters and carry people through troubled times? Ask Jimmy Carter.