Gerald Shaw, counsel for the Senior Executive Association, characterized the differences between Reagan and Bush with a quick sketch (see table 7.5).
|
George Bush had trouble defining what he called "the vision thing," so he could not get to "the problem." As numerous pundits observed during the campaign of 1992, the reason he wanted to win was so that he could stay in office, where he felt he had a right to be: he wanted to win because he wanted to win. Unlike Reagan, who made his vision simple to the point of simplistic, Bush could not articulate a vision of where he wanted to take the country-he had no single, clear message around which voters could rally.
|
His appointments and personnel actions reflect that lack of focus. When the Far Right gave him grief he would give them an appointmenta surgeon general who did not believe in the right to abortion or a director of the office of family planning who did not believe in birth control, for example. Sometimes he offered up a head on a platter, such as John Frohnmayer's (chief of the National Endowment for the Arts), when the Religious Right became art critics, or Edwin Derwinski's (secretary of Veterans Affairs), when the veterans' lobby got angry over the closing or reassignment of underutilized veterans' hospitals. But no matter how much Bush gave them, he could never give his detractors enough to allay their deep suspicion that he was not one of them.
8
|
According to some PASs, Bush often used IRC positions (except the chair) as political plums. This is a fairly safe thing to do, because the chair is the chief administrative officer and carries a great deal of weight in most IRCs. The other commissioners tend to follow her or his lead. However, when close votes are counted or lobbying is needed in Congress, the president does need strong, capable commissioners and so cannot afford to slough off on these appointments.
|
Most PASs were reluctant to distinguish between the two presidents' PASs. And, as many said Reagan's appointees were better as said Bush's were. Many did observe, though, that the Reagan White House was "more acutely attuned to political considerations" than the Bush White House. Said one, "It was a similar crowd, there wasn't a huge difference between them." But then he observed, "the Bush people were less ideological, more Washington-based, higher quality. Reagan dumped lower quality people, whom the PAS described as "low-quality hacks," at HHS and HUD, noting that one HHS chief of staff was convicted of fraud and served five months in prison.
|
Conversely, Bush was more likely, especially early on, to appoint people who believed in and cared about government.
|
|
