Campaigning Versus Governing

Maybe Barack Obama's highly effective campaign presages a highly effective presidency, but I think Peter Beinart is forcing the point a bit here:

Presidents tend to govern the way they campaigned. Jimmy Carter ran as a moralistic outsider in 1976, and he governed that way as well, refusing to compromise with a Washington establishment that he distrusted (and that distrusted him). Ronald Reagan's campaign looked harsh on paper but warm and fuzzy on TV, as did his presidency. The 1992 Clinton campaign was like the Clinton administration: brilliant and chaotic, with a penchant for near-death experiences. And the 2000 Bush campaign presaged the Bush presidency: disciplined, hierarchical, loyal and ruthless.

Except that to establish this supposed "pattern," Beinart is comparing oranges to apples to pears: Carter gets judged on his persona, both on the campaign trail and in office; Reagan gets judged half on persona, half on policy; Clinton and Bush, meanwhile, get judged on their approach to management and organization. To see how weak this sort of argument is, consider that one need only rearrange the qualities that are being judged to reach precisely the opposite conclusion - that Presidents' campaigns are a poor guide to how they'll govern. After all, Reagan's '80 campaign was badly mismanaged - he fired nearly all his senior staff after losing the Iowa caucuses, remember - yet once in office he was able to run circles around the Congressional Democrats, and match the canny Gorbachev at brinksmanship. George H.W. Bush won the Presidency by playing the hard-nosed partisan on the campaign trail, but he ended up alienating GOP true believers by cutting deals with Democrats from the White House. Bill Clinton ran as a centrist New Democrat in 1992 but tried to govern as a liberal (gays in the military, Hillarycare), before the '94 debacle forced him back to the middle. And George W. Bush ran two campaigns that were notable for their ruthless competence - yet competence of any sort has been strikingly absent from his administration's governance.

This attempt to establish a pattern is no more plausible than Beinart's, obviously - but it's no less plausible either.

Comments

Ross admits: "George W. Bush ran two campaigns that were notable for their ruthless competence - yet competence of any sort has been strikingly absent from his administration's governance."

You may be kicked out of the NR Swimming Club for that it of honesty, Ross.

Of course Rove ran the campaigns - Dumbya has never been willing to work that hard - but the stunning lack of morality in each campaign was a good predictor for the Torture President.

Why is it that this "striking" lack of competence escaped your attention in 2004, by the way?

Forget it, I know the answer.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 9, 2008 12:24 AM

Re: Bill Clinton ran as a centrist New Democrat in 1992 but tried to govern as a liberal (gays in the military, Hillarycare),

The first was and is a marginal issue, and Clinton's campaign very explicitly embraced healthcare reform, which was not seen as liberal at all, but as a very mainstream mandate. Ditto with deficit reduction. And remember NAFTA? That happened before 1994.

Posted by JonF | April 9, 2008 6:44 AM

The first was and is a marginal issue, and Clinton's campaign very explicitly embraced healthcare reform, which was not seen as liberal at all, but as a very mainstream mandate.

Good point, but I think Ross is alluding to the way they tried to govern without the Republicans. See Hillary's "my way or the highway" strategy of developing the healthcare plan, and alienating congressional Republicans on a whole host of issues.

Posted by right | April 9, 2008 8:29 AM

George H.W. Bush won the Presidency by playing the hard-nosed partisan on the campaign trail, but he ended up alienating GOP true believers by cutting deals with Democrats from the White House.

He may have alienated GOP true believers on issues such as immigration, but he absolutely did not win the presidency by being a hard-nosed partisan. That's an absurd recollection, Ross. Remember "compassionate conservatism" and "humble foreign policy" and "the CEO president" and "uniter, not a divider" and "the guy you'd like to have a beer with"(paraphrase of media sentiment).

Bush's hard-nosed partisanship in office on so many issues has come as something of a shock to the independents and moderates who voted for him honestly expecting a uniter and not a divider. Not to mention his rank politicization of previously un-politicized segments of government, such as the Justice Department.

It takes a remarkably poor leader to leave so many in one's own party thinking you're a mealy-mouthed compromiser, and moderates and Democrats thinking you're a stubborn, incurious fanatic.

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 9, 2008 9:19 AM

Ban,

Ross is talking about the first George Bush in that passage (hence the H. W.), not George W. Bush.

Posted by right | April 9, 2008 9:34 AM

right,
ouch. Should have read more closely. Sorry.

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 9, 2008 9:58 AM

and match the canny Gorbachev at brinksmanship...

What??? Does this make any sense at all?

As I recall Gorbachev was making peaceful overtures continually... and to Reagan's credit he took them at face value instead of seeing them as some kind of nefarious plot as people like Richard Perle did.

What does brinksmanship have to do with this?

Posted by peep | April 9, 2008 9:58 AM