The unique legacy of George W. Bush
According to the Wall Street Journal, “lifelong libertarian Republican” Alan Greenspan does not think much of President George W. Bush: Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O’Neill as treasury secretary — both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the ...
According to the Wall Street Journal, "lifelong libertarian Republican" Alan Greenspan does not think much of President George W. Bush: Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary -- both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers -- he "indulged in a bit of fantasy" that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn't lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes.As strange as it seems today, Greenspan's expectations about the incoming administration were not completely out of whack. There was a time when people thought Paul O'Neill would make a great Treasury Secretary. Norwas this expectation limited to fiscal policy. On foreign policy, for example, Colin Powell, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice all had good to excellent track records in previous administrations. At this stage of the game, however, there are clearly four categories of legacies that come with working for George W. Bush: 1) Those lucky few who will emerge with their reputation intact somehow. Examples: Bob Zoellick, Rob Portman, Ben Bernanke. 2) Those whose reputations acquired a stain that will be difficult to erase. Examples: Colin Powell (and his speech to the U.N.), Alan Greenspan (and his endorsement of the Bush tax cuts). 3) Those whose actions have led journalists to engage in psychoanalysis to figure out what the heck went wrong: Examples: Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld. 4) Those who have committed career suicide through repeated screw-ups. Examples: Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzales. (1) and (4) do not interest me as much as (2) and (3). How is it possible for so many distinguished policymakers to have been brought so low by one administration? UPDATE: Some commenters have pointed out that Greenspan's endorsement of the tax cuts do not fall into the same category as what other officials did, since he certainly did not endorse the massive spending increases that followed the tax cuts. I think this is a fair point, and can be summed up in an exchange Greenspan had with Bob Rubin about his testimony regarding the tax cuts: Bob Rubin phoned.... With a big tax cut, said Bob, "the risk is, you lose the fiscal discipline."... "Bob, where in my testimony do you disagree?" There was silence. Finally he replied, "The issue isn't so much what you're saying. It's how it's going to be perceived." "I cant be in charge of people's perceptions," I responded wearily. "I don't function that way. I can't function that way." It turned out that Conrad and Rubin were right....Let me put it this way. I think Greenspan can erase his stain with less effort than others in category (2). However, he's going to have to deal with people very eager to keep refreshing that stain.
According to the Wall Street Journal, “lifelong libertarian Republican” Alan Greenspan does not think much of President George W. Bush:
Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O’Neill as treasury secretary — both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers — he “indulged in a bit of fantasy” that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn’t lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the “political operation was far more dominant” than in Mr. Ford’s. “Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences,” he writes.
As strange as it seems today, Greenspan’s expectations about the incoming administration were not completely out of whack. There was a time when people thought Paul O’Neill would make a great Treasury Secretary. Norwas this expectation limited to fiscal policy. On foreign policy, for example, Colin Powell, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice all had good to excellent track records in previous administrations. At this stage of the game, however, there are clearly four categories of legacies that come with working for George W. Bush:
1) Those lucky few who will emerge with their reputation intact somehow. Examples: Bob Zoellick, Rob Portman, Ben Bernanke. 2) Those whose reputations acquired a stain that will be difficult to erase. Examples: Colin Powell (and his speech to the U.N.), Alan Greenspan (and his endorsement of the Bush tax cuts). 3) Those whose actions have led journalists to engage in psychoanalysis to figure out what the heck went wrong: Examples: Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld. 4) Those who have committed career suicide through repeated screw-ups. Examples: Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzales.
(1) and (4) do not interest me as much as (2) and (3). How is it possible for so many distinguished policymakers to have been brought so low by one administration? UPDATE: Some commenters have pointed out that Greenspan’s endorsement of the tax cuts do not fall into the same category as what other officials did, since he certainly did not endorse the massive spending increases that followed the tax cuts. I think this is a fair point, and can be summed up in an exchange Greenspan had with Bob Rubin about his testimony regarding the tax cuts:
Bob Rubin phoned…. With a big tax cut, said Bob, “the risk is, you lose the fiscal discipline.”… “Bob, where in my testimony do you disagree?” There was silence. Finally he replied, “The issue isn’t so much what you’re saying. It’s how it’s going to be perceived.” “I cant be in charge of people’s perceptions,” I responded wearily. “I don’t function that way. I can’t function that way.” It turned out that Conrad and Rubin were right….
Let me put it this way. I think Greenspan can erase his stain with less effort than others in category (2). However, he’s going to have to deal with people very eager to keep refreshing that stain.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
What Putin Got Right
The Russian president got many things wrong about invading Ukraine—but not everything.
Russia Has Already Lost in the Long Run
Even if Moscow holds onto territory, the war has wrecked its future.
China’s Belt and Road to Nowhere
Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy is a “shadow of its former self.”
The U.S. Overreacted to the Chinese Spy Balloon. That Scares Me.
So unused to being challenged, the United States has become so filled with anxiety over China that sober responses are becoming nearly impossible.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
