In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

cHAPter 6 conclusion The Public Legacy of George H. W. Bush On December 15, 1992, just thirty-six days before he would leave office, George Bush delivered an address on the foreign policy accomplishments of his administration. In the speech, what could be considered the closest thing to a farewell address that he would deliver after losing his reelection bid in November 1992, Bush talked about his vision for a new world order and emerging democracies around the globe following the end of the Cold War: The end of the cold war, you see, has placed in our hands a unique opportunity to see the principles for which America has stood for two centuries,democracy,free enterprise,and the rule of law,spread more widely than ever before in human history. For the first time, turning this global vision into a new and better world is, indeed, a realistic possibility. It is a hope that embodies our country’s tradition of idealism, which has made us unique among nations and uniquely successful. And our vision is not mere utopianism. The advance of democratic ideals reflects a hard-nosed sense of our own,of American self-interest.For certain truths have,indeed,now become evident: Governments responsive to the will of the people are not likely to commit aggression. They are not likely to sponsor terrorismortothreatenhumanitywithweaponsof massdestruction. Likewise, the global spread of free markets, by encouraging trade, investment, and growth, will sustain the expansion of American prosperity. In short, by helping others, we help ourselves. Some will dismiss this vision as no more than a dream. I ask them to consider the last 4 years when a dozen dreams were made real: The Berlin Wall demolished and Germany united; the captive nations set free; Russia democratic; whole classes of nuclear weapons eliminated, the rest vastly reduced; many nations united in our historic U.N. 196 : cHAPter 6 coalition to turn back a tyrant in the Persian Gulf; Israel and itsArab neighbors for the first time talking peace,face to face,in a region that has known so much war. Each of these once seemed a dream. Today they’re concrete realities, brought about by a common cause: the patient and judicious application of American leadership,American power, and perhaps most of all, American moral force.1 The irony of the speech, in which Bush clearly lays out a vision for America’s involvement in and leadership of the expansion of global democracy , is that it provides the type of vision that Bush was accused of not having, or at least not being able to clearly and consistently articulate during his four years in office. The consensus that has emerged since then is that Bush had many different visions for the country but did not develop one particular vision that defined him or resonated with a majority of Americans. According to Catherine Langford, “Bush’s difficulty in developing, articulating, and promoting a rhetorical vision meant the public did not know who George Bush was or for what he stood. His rhetorical ineptitude and trouble with the‘vision thing’caused him to fall short of the demands of the modern rhetorical presidency.”2 In addition, Bush supposedly “failed to develop a simple, easily repeated narrative,” and “more often than not, the president lacked any consistent rhetorical strategy.”3 A further consensus has emerged since Bush left office regarding his relationship with the press. According to historian John Robert Greene,“By the administration’s end,by all accounts,the relationship had gone past thrust and parry; George Bush truly seemed to hate the press, and, in many journalism quarters, the feeling was mutual.”4 In addition, Greene argues that “[Bush’s] public presidency was the weakest part of his tenure. He is the least introspective of men, never comfortable with articulating any abstract idea, much less with talking to the nation about what he stood for. As president, Bush consistently scorned the press’ attempt to pin him down on what he derisively called‘the vision thing.’ He never considered it a priority to place his actions as president in context for the American people,either during or after his tenure.”5 And,in terms of the overall public presidency, according to Martin Medhurst,“Unfortunately , George Bush was one of the worst [rhetorical presidents]. Even more unfortunate is the recognition that it need not have been so. Bush had the tools to be a perfectly acceptable, perhaps even good, public communicator. He simply refused to...

Share