Posted on 12/07/2018 7:56:53 AM PST by Kaslin
George H.W. Bush "gave the nation its most successful one-term presidency." He "was the best one-term president the country has ever had, and one of the most underrated presidents of all time."
So said two not impartial sources -- the late president's vice president, Dan Quayle, and his Houston friend and secretary of state, who was with him at the end, James Baker. But their assessments are entirely defensible.
The toughest one-term competitor was President James K. Polk, who achieved all four of his goals -- gaining the Oregon Territory and the Pacific Coast, establishing an independent treasury and lowering tariffs. But Polk's acquisitions left the country with a problem -- slavery in the territories -- that it wasn't able to solve without civil war. And they left his successors a nation and world headed toward broad sunlit uplands.
Polk was the original "Dark Horse" presidential candidate, and when Bush started running for president in the 1980 cycle, he was, too -- a successful oilman who had lost two Senate races and in between served two terms in the House.
His brief campaign autobiography minimized, perhaps with his characteristic modesty, the value of his experience in appointive office: As ambassador to the United Nations, he was not clued in on then-President Nixon's opening to China; he was unaware of the Cultural Revolution while serving 13 months in Beijing; he was CIA director for just 11 months. But his network of friends and cousins -- all those notes dashed off on stationery! -- propelled him to victories in the Iowa caucuses and northeastern primaries and second place on Ronald Reagan's ticket.
Bush probably learned more about issues, and certainly about world leaders, as vice president than ever before, as he said at Reagan's funeral. The result was his masterful navigation of choppy currents and sudden storms as president: uniting Germany but not humiliating Gorbachev after the Berlin Wall fell; assembling an international coalition and winning the Gulf War.
This despite his pushing against disassembling existing structures -- the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. They unraveled anyway, but mostly peacefully. It's useful to have a steady balance wheel in a time of revolutionary upheaval.
On domestic policy he was more of an innovator than people think. The young man who signed up to be a Navy pilot and the young husband who left leafy Greenwich for the desert wastes of West Texas oilfields pushed successfully for policies others hadn't considered.
Such as the Americans With Disabilities Act. This wasn't a handout, but like the GI Bill, which paid his tuition at Yale, it opened opportunities for people to help themselves.
The 1990 Clean Air Act was perhaps the last authentically bipartisan environment initiative. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act mopping up the savings-and-loan mess was costly, producing one-third of the budget deficit, but also necessary and self-liquidating.
Liberal journalists who have been praising Bush this week ridiculed him as a clueless preppie whose success was handed down to him -- absurd given the risks he took in the Pacific and Texas. They're still attacking him as a racist for the 1988 campaign ads that accurately attacked his opponent for defending for nine years the policy of granting weekend furloughs to prisoners sentenced to life without parole -- a policy for which there is no rational argument.
So why was this mostly successful president defeated resoundingly for a second term? One reason is that he broke his "read my lips" promise and agreed with Democrats to raise taxes. The tax increase fueled enthusiasm for Pat Buchanan's insurgent primary campaign. And the NAFTA trade deal with Mexico -- another original Bush initiative -- helped Ross Perot make a different conservative case against him.
But one other factor, I suspected then and believe now, was decisive: Bush was ready to retire. He had accomplished most of his goals, including some that had seemed impossible. He had enlisted in the Navy exactly 50 years before and spent more than 20 of the intervening years in public service.
He had been elected president at age 64, older -- with one exception -- than all but three other past presidents when first elected (William Harrison, James Buchanan and Zachary Taylor) and two when re-elected (Andrew Jackson and Dwight Eisenhower). The exception was conspicuous: Ronald Reagan, who had just carried 44 and 49 states at ages 69 and 73.
In politics, success can be as fatal as failure. Achieve some original bipartisan goals and neither party may want you anymore. Demonstrate mastery of foreign policy and voters may conclude they don't need it anymore. Gracefully retire and Americans may gratefully, if belatedly, give thanks, as they have this past week.
YES!!!
. . . and also negotiated our settled border with Canada.And he didn’t run for reelection in 1848 . . .
So I suppose that Polk is actually in a different category, in the sense that he was not a one-term POTUS because of electoral defeat.
That’s about where my frequent bouts of hindsight generally gets me to. That Iran/Iraq war could have gone on another couple of decades and I wouldn’t have been disappointed.
The hagiography continues.
Independent treasury as well.
Worse than simply being wrong, he broke a pledge in doing so - and passing that tax increase was a Catch-22. If the tax increase helped the economy, the great plank of the Reagan legacy which had the Democrats on their heels was destroyed - and that’s if he was right (economically) in doing so. But if it failed - and it certainly didn’t leave him with a roaring economy - he lost the election.Either way, the Republic would have lost. And look what it bought us.
“toughest one-term competitor was President James K. Polk”
LOL! This was exactly my reaction when I heard James Baker!
Of course, let’s cut him some slack. He was speaking at a funeral, not giving a history lecture.
Just the Oregon Country and the Mexican Cession together are very nearly the same amount of territory as the Louisiana Purchase.
John Adams would also have a claim to being a more significant President than GHWB, by avoiding getting us into a war with France. He had a very difficult task, following the greatest President of them all, with inherited Cabinet officers who were more loyal to Hamilton than to himself.
He raised taxes and that caused a recession and put a far-left wing judge, David Souter, on SCOTUS. His Presidency was failure as a result.
News Flash!!! He didn’t raise taxes. The rats are the ones who raised, not the president. His first term was a success just like the author said
I wasn’t either. As a matter of fact I wished I could have voted for Barbara but we don’t vote for the First Lady
Yes he did, thanks to Ross Perot
I voted for Melania. Schwing!
Regardless of who the “most successful one term POTUS” was, Trump will beat him by a mile.
100% correct, it’s no contest, Polk. He did what he said he would and then retired, almost unimaginable. Though Harding was an excellent President who would have been reelected if he had lived. Honorable mention also for John Adams. In 20/20 hindsight thought I wish we could give Cali back to Mexico.
Most other 1 termers have been a failure to varying degrees (hence their defeats or choice to not run again) or insignificant, including Bush 41, America’s John Major. Tough act to follow but...fail.
No conservative should consider Bush 41 anything but a failure if for no other reason than the fact he put a far-left wing justice on SCOTUS. That was inexcusable.
He couldn't have vetoed the tax increase? Of course, he could have.
The only reason that Clinton, who had promised the people of Arkansas that he would finish his term as governor, won the primary is because some A list Dems did not run due to Bush41's (short-lived) popularity. The only good thing about this is that the Clinton's had to rush with shredding all the documents that proved their corruption.
Bush could have still won if he had pushed back about the tax increase, exposing the Dems for lying about cutting spending $3 to every $1 in tax increases. Of course being the "gentleman" (read: pushover) that he was, he just took the arrows.
Top five single-termers:
Polk no. 1 (engineered the contiguous continental USA, damn!)
Bush no. 2 (gotta give credit for management of the Soviet collapse; hard to stomach domestic policy)
Taft no. 3 (created the modern Republican party, saving it from becoming the progressives; also launched modern auto industry and saved the Rule of Law)
J Adams no. 4 (hard to excuse him but he did follow Washington and ceded power to Jefferson, so there)
Arthur no. 5 (he just managed things well!)
Bottom dwellers, from worst to less bad — list is a work in progress:
- Buchanan
- A. Johnson
- Jimbo
- Hoover
- Clevend’s 2nd non-consecutive term
- JQ Adams
- Pierce
- Tyler
- Fillmore
- Clevend’s 1st non-consecutive term
- Van Buren
Jeez, this is hard to do! Easier is to name the six worst presidents in general:
Barack
FDR
Wilson
Carter
Buchanan
Clintoon
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.