NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... each is not strong in the domestic policy arena, whilst Reagan to this day enjoys a reputation as a brave and strong innovator with a good record of achievement. Whilst the polarisation of their respective achievements is perhaps exaggerated, it seems clear that Reagan enjoyed the majority of his success in the legislative, domestic sphere, whilst Bush's glory lies elsewhere. VISION AND LEADERSHIP One of the most common criticisms of Bush is one that can never be laid at the door of Ronald Reagan; that of a clack of clear vision or coherent policy objectives. To this is attributed his lack of decisive domestic action on the strength of his popularity. George Bush himself admitted he had no "vision thing" and this could well be considered one of his greatest failings.
Voters expected leadership and some idea of direction from their chief executive; Bush gave them neither. It is interesting to ask whether this discontent was sharpened following the strongly visionary style of Reagan. Reagan caught the nation's attention with his colourful rhetoric, his doom-laden predictions for a future which could face economic ruin, but which under his grand plan, would be rose-tinted. His clarity of manner and ability to present complicated issues meant the public could feel reassured that their President understood where he was leading the country. Whether this is true or whether the reverse was, in fact, the case, is open for debate. He can certainly take much of the credit for restoring public faith in the beleaguered office of the Presidency after Vietnam and Watergate.
FOREIGN POLICY Whilst Reagan undoubtedly owed his reputation and presidential popularity to his performance in domestic politics, it is in the foreign policy arena that Bush shone. Rose contends that the Guardian president, such as Bush, prefers to attend to international matters as it is here he can be imbued with a significance and respect uncommon in the day-to-day political fray. Bush considered it his primary concern, keeping in frequent touch with world leaders, in complete contrast to Reagan who paid world affairs little or no attention, other than to curtly denounce the Soviet Union an 'evil empire' or to embroil himself in arms scandals. Reagan's Record The Iran Contra affair which erupted under Reagan involving the sale of arms to Iraq is widely held to be an example of Reagan's detachment from decision making and knowledge of the activities of his staff.
Delegation is one matter; such damaging inattention to detail cost him dearly in terms of public confidence and respect. Reagan's success in handling the Cold War is disputed. The Star Wars Defence Initiative and continuation of a generally aggressive stance has been criticised as unnecessary in light of the deteriorating Soviet economic situation and the election of Gorbachev who clearly intended market reforms. Although no damage was caused, it has been put that this inflammatory stance coupled with his crass comments about the Soviets being evil could well have drawn out the stand-off or strained the newly-improving relations unnecessarily. Alternatively, and somewhat over-generously in my opinion, Wildavsky argues that "outspoken moral rejection of the Soviet system and a confident affirmation of democratic capitalism by an American President may have helped the Soviets face up to their inability to justify their dictatorial communism" It may at least be true that Reagan's stance and his upping of the ante in terms of defence spending helped Gorbachev and his party convince the people that reform was what was needed, and both he and Gorbachev managed to persuade their government to begin disarmament. An Improvement on Reagan?
George Bush on the other hand is widely praised for negotiating the USA and to a great extent, much of the world, safely through a period which could easily have been fraught with turbulence. There is no guarantee that without his steady influence and transactional, conciliatory style of leadership the end of communism would have avoided all these potential hazards. Bush's policy in Central America was vastly more successful than Reagan's and showed him to be a strong military leader as well as a talented diplomat with the successful capture of General Noriega in 1989 from Panama. This demonstration of willingness to use force coupled with the negotiating skills demonstrated in dealings with the USSR and the former East Germany showed his ability to recognise the most appropriate course of action for a given situation and, as Mervin puts it, his foreign policy record is "not easy to fault." War in the Gulf Bush's handling of the war in the Persian Gulf in 1990 is arguably his finest time. The liberation of Kuwait saw the President's popularity rise to 89 %, the highest ever recorded.
George Bush saw the Iraqis as a direct security risk for the USA as opposed to a dispute between independent parties as tended to be the prevailing view elsewhere. He demonstrated considerable diplomatic skill in the "whirlwind of telephone diplomacy" conducted when Iraq invaded Kuwait. His strategy when dealing with the public is less clearly successful; Mark Rozell contends that despite his dislike of big speeches and 'grandstanding', Bush spoke eloquently and forcefully as never before during the war. Others consider that he was obstinate in his refusal to keep the public adequately informed of progress on the Gulf and of details regarding the deployment of US troops. He was of the opinion that, having been elected by the good American people, he should not have to degrade himself by having to explain and justify every move, rather they should trust his good judgement and await a favourable result. Bush's popularity It has been put that this attitude was what cost him re-election; he disliked the idea of having to campaign for re-election and thought the American public should merely observe his progress so far and come to the inevitable conclusion.
This seems surely a mistake; given his tremendous popularity immediately following the war, it seems inconceivable that he could fail to gain re-election. A further criticism is that, given such a huge popularity status, should Bush not have used this advantage to wield influence over Congress and perhaps secure some more effective policy measures in the domestic sphere. Whilst to a certain extent, as Mervin argues, we should judge Presidents not by some universal standard, but rather by the completion of their stated agenda, we should be careful that we do not overlook the possibility that decisive action is what is required for the good of the country. It is no good saying that Bush never intend to overhaul the system if it appears that this is what was necessary; Presidents must be accountable for identifying the needs of their country, not shrinking from them. CONCLUSION On its most simplistic level, the comparison of Bush and Reagan paints the as exact opposites; where Reagan was confident and happy to know only the bare bones of a theory, Bush was uncomfortable with large addresses but could talk intimately with painstaking detail on any number of policy issues. Where Bush knew almost everyone on Capitol Hill and yet failed to make any significant impression on the American legislature, Reagan was a political outsider who managed to talk and bargain his way into probably the biggest policy reforms since the New Deal.
Reagan can be accused of blundering insensitivity no the international scene while Bush gains only admiration for his foreign policy conduct. And, ultimately, Bush was the President whose popularity was highest in recorded history, yet his inability to play the media game like Reagan the actor eventually lead to his inability to even gain a second term. Whatever Bush's strengths, a President who fails to 'play the game' which, in this day and age means handle the media, cannot possibly be considered successful by his electorate, and the interpretation of his achievements can be defined by his most vocal detractors. Rozell asks if, "there is no more compelling symbolism of the substantive necessity of presidential rhetoric and symbolism than the vast disconnect between what people close to Bush perceive about the man and what much of the public ultimately believed" Reagan, on the other hand, is remembered not only for his reforms in policy, but overwhelmingly for the connection he managed to achieve with the American voting public. This not only secures him a place in fond memory but was ultimately what allowed him to achieve that which he did whilst in office; "In the modern era, the presidential image is tantamount to reality." Where Bush might easily have been the better President given the requisite media talents and a little more political sophistication, in fact Reagan came out of his term of office the more successful of the two. BIBLIOGRAPHY Kellerman, B. , 'The Political Presidency', Ch. 11; (1984) Light, P. , 'The President's Agenda' Chs. 10, 11, 12; (1999) Mervin, D. , 'George Bush and the Guardianship Presidency', Chs. 2, 9; (1996) Rose, R. , 'The Post-Modern Presidency', Ch. 15; (1991) Rozell, M.
J. , 'In Reagan's Shadow: Bush's Antirhetorical Presidency', Presidential Studies Quarterly; (Winter 1998) Wildavsky, A. , 'The Beleaguered Presidency', ch. 12; (1994)
Free research essays on topics related to: george bush, reagan, foreign policy, domestic sphere, bush
Research essay sample on Domestic Sphere George Bush
