The Other “W”: In Presidential Math, How 43=28
by Chris Gabriel
Posted: February 13, 2007

Warning: the following contains analysis, refers to facts and events, and has been processed on equipment in contact with history.

Pity President George W. Bush. Really. As a man, he seems to enjoy many blessings, including good health, wealth, and a fine family. As a leader, however, he is doomed. His is a “can’t-win” presidency, and has been from the beginning, due to factors entirely beyond his control.

Out of the gate, he has degrees from two of the leading universities in America. He is reported to be a voracious reader. Not flyweight stuff, either—real, meaty books. Nonetheless, many insist, presume, or have been told often enough they believe, that he is stupid. (Maybe anyone can get through Yale, but I’m told by reliable sources that a Harvard MBA is a real test, even for the reputedly clever.)

The economy is marvelous, and recovered almost unbelievably from the Clinton-legacy bubble of 2000-1. Bush’s tax cuts spurred spending and investment and averted a recessionary collapse. For this, Alan Greenspan gets the credit. “W” gets nothing but slurs and arrows.

Bush has overseen an increase in government spending that would make a Democrat blush (with help from a rudderless and formerly Republican Congress), and liberals hate him. Can’t stand him. Turn purple and have trouble breathing at the mere mention of his name.

Bush has overseen an increase in government spending that would make a Democrat blush, and conservatives desert him. Disown him. Are sure they never liked him and only voted for him because they had no better choices in 2000.

Of course, the big issue is the war. War in Iraq. War on Terror. (“War on ‘Tara’” if you prefer the accent of my new Southern home. This would cause concern if I was not confident that leaders from the warmer regions of our nation don’t actually think we’re battling Scarlett O’Hara and friends.)

September 11 changed everything. It transformed the priorities of our nation and the world. It erased what “W” planned to be, and made him a war president at a perilous time. It also doomed his efforts to nearly certain failure.

How do I know this? To quote the irrepressible Mark Twain, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Flash back about 90 years, and we find a world with a lot of parallels to our own.

Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1912, despite having failed to win a majority of the popular vote. (Most voters split between Republican William Howard Taft and ex-Republican Teddy Roosevelt running as an independent.) Ignoring protests about his lack of a mandate, Wilson embarked nonetheless on an ambitious domestic agenda. He achieved mixed results on that front, and then a national security crisis came unexpectedly to fix his attention elsewhere. In this case, World War I, beginning in 1914.

As in the 2000s, America found itself playing a new role in the world in the 1910s, one it was not yet used to: Great Power then, Sole Superpower now. We had muscles to flex and, like a newborn thoroughbred, we wobbled around not sure how to proceed.

Facing a foreign policy challenge, Wilson sent troops to Europe, and quickly tipped the balance in favor of the exhausted French and British over the exhausted Germans. This fresh firepower didn’t take long to produce success on the battlefield. The real challenge came afterwards. What to do with our victory? In hindsight, we were highly unprepared for the more important issue of securing the peace.

After fighting ended, the U.S. was divided between competing visions of how to proceed. Wilson presented a vision of a better and more American world. He promoted his cherished League of Nations as the means to make the carnage of the World War the “War to End All Wars.” His political opponents, Henry Cabot Lodge and other leading Republicans among them, believed that Wilson’s idealism was misplaced and that America had more important priorities at home.

The decisive domestic factor in this tug-of-peace was a segment of the country that was virulently anti-Wilsonian. Anything he was for, they were against. One root of this hatred was the way in which some people believed the U.S. entered the war under false pretenses. Wilson won a narrow re-election in 1916 by promising emphatically to keep America out of a European conflict, which many felt was none of our business. The fact that we found ourselves in that same conflict the very next year was inexcusable to many. (“He lied us into war.”  Sound familiar?)

This problem was compounded by the fact that Wilson was contemptuous of those who disagreed with him and insisted on conducting his policy-making within a small inner-circle. This kept him insulated from critics, even reasonable ones, and also meant that he failed to effectively communicate his plans and to convince the public that they were worth the sacrifice he was asking.

In any case, Wilson’s ideals were no match for the domestic forces arrayed against him. The “doughboys” tipped the balance in the trenches of Flanders, but their sacrifices accomplished little in the end. As we know from our history books, the “War to End All Wars” was re-fought in more devastating but conclusive fashion a generation later.

Why did all of this happen, and why does the “W” from the 1910s sound a lot like the “W” from the 2000s? Both, as it turns out, faced a very similar alignment of demographic forces. In Wilson’s case, the gray-haired leaders of the “Progressive” generation were in conflict among themselves about the ends and means of America’s actions, and could not inspire uniformity among the rest of the nation. The mid-level management in place at the time was a “Missionary” generation better at grand vision than detailed planning.  The front-line troops were brave and effective but their heroism in a relatively useless war helped to make them the “Lost” generation. For Bush, the same pattern is repeated in the diffused “Silent,” short-on-detail “Boomer,” and pragmatic but cynical “Gen X” generations. This combination, in both instances, lacks the cohesion, direction, and discipline needed to accomplish anything on a broad national level. (As a preview of coming attractions, future columns are going to explore this generational cycle in more detail. The goal is to distill all of American history down into digestible pieces. No one can say that heyallright lacks ambition.)

Wilson and Bush both had, or have, a vision for America’s place in the world that was, or is, out of step with their time. In each case, their vision was, or will be, left to others to realize. Wilson’s mantle was inherited by FDR and his vision laid the groundwork for “The American Century.”

What will become of Bush? Time will tell. Like Wilson, I expect that he will leave office exhausted and unappreciated. Also like Wilson, however, I think that he has predicted the predominant leadership trait needed at some stage by his successors. Wilson anticipated the principled American engagement in global affairs that characterized FDR and presidents to follow him. Bush likewise represents a vision of virtuous American involvement in the world. He couples this with a willingness to fight the radically regressive forces trying desperately to menace us with more destructive capacity than Wilson and his peers ever could have imagined. It appears certain that this battle will be with us until the threat is vanquished or until America as we know it ceases to exist. Meanwhile, it will be up to someone other than Bush to accomplish his objectives at a more opportune time.

After Wilson, the U.S. chose the very un-Wilsonian Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover as leaders, before eventually finding FDR. Bush’s immediate heir(s) also are likely to back away from his policies. Nonetheless, the same demons that Bush has confronted will be waiting for whoever is willing and able to inherit his mantle.

In presidential math: “W” 1910s (28) = “W” 2000s (43).  Quod erat demonstrandum.

Copyright © 2007 Chris Gabriel