How Obama is like George W. Bush

Here's an unlikely comparison that seems to be becoming a meme: how Barack Obama is like George W. Bush.

First, Texas Monthly editor Paul Burka drew the analogy in a Saturday NYT op-ed:

By losing the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, Barack Obama found himself sharing common ground with an adversary whose politics he has often criticized: George W. Bush. Like Mr. Bush in 2000, Mr. Obama finished second in a primary he had expected to win.

As it happens, this is not the only way that Mr. Obama resembles Mr. Bush. The Illinois Democrat seems to have learned a lot from the first presidential campaign of a Texas Republican.

Mr. Bush positioned himself in 2000 as “a uniter, not a divider,” and Mr. Obama, while carefully avoiding using the word “uniter,” now offers a similar message. Just as Mr. Bush’s message of compassionate conservatism appealed to many Democrats and independent-minded liberals, Mr. Obama’s politics of hope seems to disarm Republicans and rightward-leaning independents.

Unfortunately for those conservatives drawn to Mr. Obama’s message of unity, he almost certainly can’t deliver on it. Just as President Bush failed to unite Washington and instead ended up contributing to its divisiveness, so Mr. Obama will eventually have to accept that conflict, rather than unity, is the natural condition of politics.

Then, in his column today, Paul Krugman offers a less flattering analogy between Obama and Bush:

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

I think there's actually something to this comparison. Like Bush in 2000, Obama is letting his non-threatening persona do the work and benefiting from a personality-based narrative that lets him get away with more in terms of policy. But Burka is right -- personality is not a solution to polarization. It's hard to imagine Obama succeeding at "bringing people together" unless he wins in a landslide. Think of it this way: do you think Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are going to want to work in good faith with him? Or are they going to try to undermine him at every turn?

Comments

[Rob]

I disagree with your last proposition.

If Obama is elected, he would be the first African-American President, he would have been elected by campaigning against politics as usual, and his election will very likely be followed by a wave of self-congratulation among the public, good feeling and high approval ratings.

Almost certainly the Democrats will have majority control of both Houses, and Obama will have the united support of essentially all the Democrats. Only the Republican minority in the Senate will have the power to stand in the way of enactment of Obama's programs, by mounting filibusters. And in the climate that will exist early in Obama's term, I don't think they'll have the will to do that. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will roll over and play dead.

[Jinchi]

Burka's position is a little absurd. Hillary Clinton is the one running with a "pragmatic" strategy. She says she knows what "can be done" and doesn't want to raise false hopes.

Obama starts from a far more progressive position and hopes for the best. At worst he'll end up where Clinton started. At best, she'll end up there too.

For all Bush's faults, he's been effective at getting his way. He started at an ideologically polarized position and got what he wanted as often as not. In fact, even with the Democratic Congress, he's been able to push through his agenda on Iraq, on military funding, and on the FISA law.

Democrats have lost repeatedly following the Clinton-style, pragmatic, "best we can hope for" strategy.

[Howard]

There are many serious issues for the Congress to address. A new president (Republican or Democrat) can probably be very effective. But certainly some more so than others.

If a Democrat wins I don't see that Republicans need to "roll over and play dead". Conversely, if a Republican wins the Congress can probably still accomplish far more than with Bush. He is as lame a duck as Carter was.

The country needs to reduce the deficit. Additional tax reform is called for. The country wants (and should have) a more comprehensive and less expensive health care system. The country must reduce it's reliance on foreign oil. The world needs for the US to take a lead in dealing with climate change. Illegal immigration remains a problem. Our penal system is counter-productive. The list goes on.

There are pragmatic cost effective ways to address these issues. Partisanship is a big part of what has held us back.

I have to agree with Brendan that HRC is (or has been made to be) "polarizing". She's going to meet a lot of resistance. It's questionable if she has the communication skills to build the strong public support behind her that's needed. That's too bad.

Obama probably can do a much better job - at least he'll have a clean slate out of the gate. I'd say the same for Edwards.

I'm not going to opine here on the Republican candidates but it's not all gloom on that side of the slate either.

[James]

I hate to imply that "W" is multifaceted, but I conjure up a completely different sort of politician when George W. Bush comes to mind. It's the politician who seems almost physically incapable of admitting to mistakes or lapses in judgment that, directly or indirectly, cost the lives of thousands. Hang on... I think I'm having "a moment of clarity" here.

[Howard]

Jinchi makes an interesting point, but I disagree with his opinion on the effectiveness of the Bush approach. Bush has had his way as commander-in-chief but otherwise he has mostly failed in any domestic efforts, following the first two years of the Presidency (when education reform and tax cuts were passed).

For example, he failed on Social Security reform and on Immigration, two major issues that he wanted to address after the 2004 elections.

It is also likely his tax cuts will be reversed to a large degree (though not entirely). “No Child Left Behind” is seen more as a band-aide than a real improvement (most educators actually see it as counter-productive in their own schools and classrooms) and will be partly undone as well.

The Bush legacy will not be legislative.

[sue]

I'm surprised more people don't see Obama as being the democratic version of George W. Bush. Just like Bush, Obama has very little political experience or track record to stand on to justify his candidacy for POTUS.

Secondly, just like Bush, Obama is this empty canvas that people can project all their desires of the next POTUS onto. The reality is that just like Bush, Obama is doomed to miserably fail and disappoint everyone who buys into his grandiose words and ideology.

We've had Bush for the last 8 years... and I suspect that Obama years will be just as horrid and miserable. G-R-E-A-T.

Bush replica number 2, here we come. *sigh*

[sue]

I'm surprised more people don't see Obama as being the democratic version of George W. Bush. Just like Bush, Obama has very little political experience or track record to stand on to justify his candidacy for POTUS.

Secondly, just like Bush, Obama is this empty canvas that people can project all their desires of the next POTUS onto. The reality is that just like Bush, Obama is doomed to miserably fail and disappoint everyone who buys into his grandiose words and ideology.

We've had Bush for the last 8 years... and I suspect that Obama years will be just as horrid and miserable. G-R-E-A-T.

Bush replica number 2, here we come. *sigh*

[a concerned citizen]

I don't like Obama. He has a funny sounding name and he doesn't look like the presidents on the dollar bills.