The Wall Street Journal’s ($) Holman Jenkins weighs in today with this column regarding the ideas regarding the psychology of leading of Stanley Renshon, who is a psychologist and political scientist at the City University of New York Graduate Center.
Mr. Renshon has written a new book set for publication in September called “In His Father’s Shadow,” in which Mr. Renshon addresses George W Bush’s emergence from an “erratic commitment to conventional success” in early adulthood to an “embrace of responsibility and sustained success that would have been little expected from his performance until then.” Mr. Renshon is also the author of a number of other works on the psychology of American presidents, inlcuding the award-winning account of Bill Clinton’s first term, “High Hopes.”
Mr. Renshon first notes that the public’s pre-election evaluation of Mr. Bush’s leadership style overlooked an important part of his personality. As Mr. Jenkins notes:
He came to office promising to be a “uniter not a divider”; his reputation in the traditionally weak Texas governor’s office was that of a consensus seeker. Those who expected more of the same in the White House have been pleasantly (or unpleasantly) surprised because, says Mr. Renshon, they overlooked an aspect of Mr. Bush’s character: His rare capacity to “stand apart,” even from friends and supporters, and withstand abuse and criticism when he believes a policy course is the right one.
He also ended up with a political character noticeably different from that of his loved and admired papa, who famously derided the “vision thing” and sought compromise with every critic. “Mr. Bush is a president who is comfortable taking controversial stands and sticking with them,” Mr. Renshon writes. “He is able to do so through sometimes severe storms of public anxiety and critics’ cries to change course.”
Using Mr. Renshon’s analysis, Mr. Jenkins speculates on the probable course of Mr. Kerry’s leadership style if elected president:
GOP harping on Mr. Kerry’s “liberal” record would seem to imply he has philosophical commitments that he’s prepared to sacrifice for. The label “Massachusetts liberal” perhaps points closer to the truth. Unlike Mr. Bush, he built his life and self-image around elective office, and in a state and party where survival required adhering to certain unfashionable and arguably obsolescing norms. He’s risk averse where Mr. Bush is a risk taker.
His leadership style is strongly at odds with Mr. Bush’s — and one that Democrats are hoping Americans are in the mood for right now. That’s the real message of his constant invoking of Vietnam. That’s the real strength of his campaign: I was daring and adventurous then, and had my fill. Witness my career ever since: cautious, “nuanced,” utterly lacking in the “go for it” certainty of my opponent.
Contrary to much campaign rhetoric, the difference probably wouldn’t be felt in the war on terror, to which both parties are now committed. It’s on domestic issues that history has trapped Democrats in the role of reactionary party, reflexively defending a status quo.
On Social Security, Medicare, education, you name it: Republicans at least grapple realistically with the need to reshape these programs to keep them solvent and delivering value in the 21st century. Democrats don’t. A lot of voters would be pleasantly (or unpleasantly) surprised by Mr. Kerry if he turned out to be a politician willing to court controversy and criticism to change that.
I do not agree with Mr. Jenkins’ assessment that the Republican Party is “at least grappling” with the issues relating to reshaping the above-cited governmental programs. On the contrary, the only reason that this Presidential race is likely to be a close one is because the electorate senses that this Republican Administration and Republican-controlled Congress have largely failed to take any constructive action in addressing these issues.
Nevertheless, Mr. Jenkins is correct that the success of either a second Bush Administration term or a Kerry Presidency will likely depend on the willingness of the leader to take risks and to adhere to unpopular positions that will lead to a sound goal. Bush has proven that he has the capacity to do that in regard to his foreign policy against the Islamic fascists. Does Kerry have that attribute?
Read the entire article.