Spring Break
For now, Republicans should wait to criticize Obama
Matt Stevens
Issue date: 1/20/09 Section: Commentary
Today is Jan. 20. At noon, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Today is an understandably thrilling day for Democrats. The party is about to celebrate its return to the White House after an eight-year exile, while continuing to enjoy majority party status in both houses of Congress. Meanwhile, Republicans are approaching today's events in an ambivalent manner. On the one hand, there are some Republicans who would like to work with the new president as often as possible to tackle the massive problems that the U.S. is currently facing, while disagreeing with him privately and in a respectful manner. However, other Republicans argue that because President George W. Bush was treated in an unfair and disrespectful manner by many on the left, Republicans must treat Obama in a similar manner and get revenge. It would appear that the former group argues in favor of the wiser course for Republicans.
Many Americans are familiar with the Bush administration's willingness to play "hardball" politics. What is so interesting about such an approach to the "game" of politics is that it is at odds with George W. Bush's governing style in Texas. From 1995 through 2000, then-Governor Bush projected terms of political engagement marked by almost anything being negotiable. So why did President George W. Bush adopt a leadership posture so different from that of Gov. George W. Bush?
A principal reason may be a belief, prominent in Republican circles (and shared by Bush himself), that part of why George H. W. Bush eventually lost his bid for a second term as president was that his disinclination to pick fights with Democrats implied diminished enthusiasm for fighting for traditional Republican causes, which in turn dampened Republican enthusiasm for him. Bush probably did adopt such a leadership posture in part to avoid the fate of his father.
However, the origins of Bush's leadership may run deeper than that. Bush also took such a hard line approach to prevent certain critics from controlling the public's perception of him and his ability to govern. During Bush's first inaugural parade on Jan. 20, 2001, hundreds of protestors held up signs with slogans like "Not My President" and "Jail to the Thief," apparent references to Election 2000 controversies. Over the following months, several Democratic members of Congress repeated these charges in their floor speeches. Then-Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe made sure to, in all of his TV appearances, mention his belief that Bush's opponent, Al Gore, was the real winner of the election. Many other Democrats followed the chairman's lead on TV.
Many Americans are familiar with the Bush administration's willingness to play "hardball" politics. What is so interesting about such an approach to the "game" of politics is that it is at odds with George W. Bush's governing style in Texas. From 1995 through 2000, then-Governor Bush projected terms of political engagement marked by almost anything being negotiable. So why did President George W. Bush adopt a leadership posture so different from that of Gov. George W. Bush?
A principal reason may be a belief, prominent in Republican circles (and shared by Bush himself), that part of why George H. W. Bush eventually lost his bid for a second term as president was that his disinclination to pick fights with Democrats implied diminished enthusiasm for fighting for traditional Republican causes, which in turn dampened Republican enthusiasm for him. Bush probably did adopt such a leadership posture in part to avoid the fate of his father.
However, the origins of Bush's leadership may run deeper than that. Bush also took such a hard line approach to prevent certain critics from controlling the public's perception of him and his ability to govern. During Bush's first inaugural parade on Jan. 20, 2001, hundreds of protestors held up signs with slogans like "Not My President" and "Jail to the Thief," apparent references to Election 2000 controversies. Over the following months, several Democratic members of Congress repeated these charges in their floor speeches. Then-Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe made sure to, in all of his TV appearances, mention his belief that Bush's opponent, Al Gore, was the real winner of the election. Many other Democrats followed the chairman's lead on TV.
Be the first to comment on this story