home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1993
/
TIME Almanac 1993.iso
/
time
/
010791
/
0107991.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-08-28
|
5KB
|
102 lines
MEN OF THE YEAR, Page 18A Tale of Two Bushes
One finds a vision on the global stage; the other still
displays none at home
By GEORGE J. CHURCH
The traditional standard for TIME's Man -- or Woman -- of
the Year is that the person be the one who, for better or for
worse, has had the most impact on the year's events. For better
or for worse: many selections have qualified on the first part
of this criterion, some notable ones on the second. George Bush,
however, is unique: the first to be chosen because he fits both
aspects of the definition. He seemed almost to be two Presidents
last year, turning to the world two faces that were not just
different but also had few features in common. One was a foreign
policy profile that was a study in resoluteness and mastery, the
other a domestic visage just as strongly marked by wavering and
confusion.
The march of events since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait has by
now acquired an air of inevitability. In fact, it was not at all
inevitable that Saudi Arabia would welcome an American army. Or
that 26 other nations would join the U.S. in sending troops to
the region. Or that the Soviet Union would become an American
ally in all but name, voting in the United Nations to approve
the use of force against its very recent client state, Iraq. The
worldwide coalition against Iraq, the suffocating embargo, the
massing of an international army to confront Saddam -- all
happened because George Bush drew on all his experience of
international affairs, all his carefully cultivated relations
with foreign leaders (yes, those incessant phone calls that
prompted such snickering) to make them happen.
If Bush has led the U.S. to the brink of a possibly
wrenching war, he has also raised a vision of a new world order.
In it, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the superpowers that kept
the world in dread of nuclear annihilation for 40 years, would
cooperate to maintain peace and order, and the U.N. would deter
aggression as its founders intended 45 years ago. By midwifing
this new order, Bush had a decidedly favorable impact on the
course of events.
But domestic policy! What could have been more baffling, at
times ludicrous, than Bush's performance on taxes. It was not
his repudiation of the "read my lips" pledge; the only thing
wrong with his retreat from that cynical vow was that it took so
long in coming. What was truly embarrassing was his whirligig
behavior afterward: four reversals within three days on the kind
of deal with Congress he would accept. Bush climaxed that
bewildering gyration with his "read my hips" silliness -- then
topped it off later with a fresh "no new taxes" pledge that
nobody could believe.
The actual budget deal, though deeply flawed, will at least
begin the painful process of reducing the deficit. But Bush half
drifted, half let himself be pushed into it, and that was no
accident. His domestic policy, to the extent that he has one,
has been to leave things alone until he could no longer avoid
taking action. That strategy of deliberate drift burdens the
nation with a host of problems that have become worse over the
past decade: drugs, homelessness, racial hostility, education,
environment. In sharp contrast to his foreign policy
performance, Bush affected domestic events decidedly for the
worse.
Of course there is only one George Bush, and the following
stories explore the paradox of his two policy faces. In part, it
is a simple matter of interest. Global diplomacy is what he has
trained for and what absorbs him; domestic affairs are just not
as much fun. But it is also that he has mastered a technique of
policy formulation -- hatching backstage deals with a small
group of leaders whose confidence he has carefully cultivated
over the years -- that works much better abroad than at home.
The catch is that foreign and domestic policy cannot always be
compartmentalized: Bush's love of secrecy and inability to
articulate his goals (or is it his aversion to doing so?) could
yet cost him the public support essential to waging successful
war, if that is where the confrontation with Saddam Hussein is
leading.
In any event, Bush put his distinctive stamp -- or rather,
two distinctive stamps -- on the year's news. For better and for
worse, the two George Bushes are TIME's 1990 Men of the Year.