W’s Return

Yesterday former President George W. Bush returned, briefly, to the national stage.  He was campaigning for his brother, Jeb Bush, who is hanging on for dear life and hoping to make a good showing in the South Carolina Republican primary.

According to press reports, the former President gave a short speech that endorsed his brother and described some of the qualities, like integrity and judgment and character, that he believes are needed in a good President — implicitly drawing a contrast with the blustery bombast of Donald Trump, without mentioning Trump or any other Republican candidate by name.   “W” also recounted some memories from his former campaigns in South Carolina and added some of his trademark self-deprecating humor.

It was a bit jarring to see news reports of George W. Bush at the podium.  I hadn’t seen him for a while, and of course he looked older, and thinner.  Since he left office seven years ago, former President Bush has consciously avoided the public eye and maintained a pretty consistent non-partisan, apolitical tone.  His speech yesterday sounds like more of what we’ve come to expect from him in his post-presidential years.  He was there to support and help his brother, but he did it without attacking other candidates by name or, for that matter, mentioning President Obama or criticizing the Obama administration.

George W. Bush remains a figure to be mocked and reviled among some on the left side of the political spectrum; seven years later, he’s still blamed by many, inside the Obama administration and out, for virtually all of our current problems.  Now Donald Trump has joined in, by repeating the debunked conspiratorial theories that the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to maneuver us into an unnecessary war and ignored clear intelligence that America would be attacked on 9/11.

Through it all, former President Bush has publicly remained above the fray, no doubt believing that, having served in the nation’s highest office, former Presidents shouldn’t engage in rancorous partisan politics or bash their successor on talk shows.  It’s an old school approach that speaks of personal humility and properly recognizes the dignity of the presidency.  His ego obviously doesn’t compel him to stay in the media spotlight.  Instead, he’s taken to painting, he’s written a book about his Dad, former President George H.W. Bush, and he’s focused on charitable and humanitarian efforts.

Yesterday, George W. Bush listed some of the qualities we want in our President.  I think the former President’s personal conduct since he left office illustrates those qualities — and draws a pretty sharp contrast with the vulgar, egotistical, limelight-loving loudmouth who currently is leading in the polls.

 

The President’s Speech

During a recent interview with Rolling Stone, President Obama said that kids have “good instincts” and added:  “They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.’”  Does it matter that the President used “bullshitter” in an apparent reference to Mitt Romney?  It’s just one word, after all.

I think it does matter, for two reasons.  First, the presidency remains an aspirational position — although I recognize that may be an old-fashioned view.  The President is the Leader of the Free World and the head of the world’s greatest democracy.  We want the President, through his words and deeds, to represent the best about America.  It’s what people mean when they talk about a candidate for the job appearing to be “presidential.”

Prior Presidents understood this, and paid careful attention to their public conduct and public speech.  They were careful to keep their vulgarities hidden behind the walls of the Oval Office.  When President Obama forsakes the high tones that traditionally accompany that office and uses crass language like “bullshitter” instead, it reflects a depressing coarsening of our culture.  If even the President uses gutter language to refer to his opponent, in an on-the-record comment, what does that say about our society and American culture?

Second, the President’s comment, as well as much of his recent behavior, is fundamentally contrary to the approach and persona that attracted and inspired so many people in 2008.  In that election, reporters covering an Obama speech often referred to his “soaring rhetoric” — and it was soaring.  During his “hope and change” campaign, the President consciously sounded high-minded themes that were fully consistent with the aspirational aspect of the presidency, and refrained from name-calling, cheap stunts, and other tawdry political tactics.

That is what makes the “bullshitter” reference so jarring.  It suggests that the Obama that so many found so appealing in 2012 is gone, if he ever existed.  It’s hard to envision the 2008 Obama calling someone a “bullshitter,” or making the harsh and patronizing comments about aircraft carriers and submarines in the most recent debate, among other less than idealistic behavior the President has exhibited during this campaign.  That conduct directly undercuts some of the most appealing aspects of candidate Obama in 2008, and makes people feel like they were hoodwinked when they pulled the lever for that candidate four years ago.  Americans don’t like to feel like they’ve been played for fools.

A Fine Line And A Delicate Balance

The disturbing “gatecrashing” incident at the White House has resulted in one of those difficult judgment calls that Presidents and their legal counsel inevitably are required to make.  The incident is, quite properly, being investigated by Congress.  Congress no doubt will look at how the security breach occurred, consider how it could have been prevented, and evaluate whether new laws should be enacted to better safeguard the safety of the President and his family and to provide more appropriate punishment for White House trespassers.

The judgment call was presented when Congress asked the White House social secretary, whose office planned the dinner, to testify at the hearing.  She has declined, citing separation of powers issues.  Separation of powers, of course, is the elusive, flexible concept that the three branches of government should stick to their designated constitutional roles and not interfere unduly with the each other’s core activities.  The concept is elusive because the three branches routinely interact.  Congress, with the power of the purse strings and the power to independently investigate, often looks into how the executive branch and the courts function and writes budget and substantive legislation that directly affects the operations of its coordinate branches.

The Constitution doesn’t say a lot about separation of powers.  It is largely a doctrine of judicial creation, developed through a series of cases decided in the centuries since the Constitution was written.  Because it is not well defined, the judgment call comes in deciding when to invoke the concept and when to accede, while reserving all rights, in what seems like a reasonable request by a coordinate branch.  If the President is savvy in waiting to invoke the doctrine until instances where the facts and equities make his case an especially compelling one — say, if Congress sought to force the President’s national security advisor testify about the process the President followed in deciding how to exercise his powers as Commander-in-Chief — then he may create another useful precedent that will expand and strengthen the application of the doctrine.  If, on the other hand, the President repeatedly seeks to avoid any congressional scrutiny through separation of powers arguments, then a judicial challenge may produce a decision that greatly restricts the use of such arguments in the future.  (Of course, there also are political costs to a routine refusal to cooperate in investigations because it looks like the executive branch is stonewalling and overly secretive.)

It is always easy to second-guess judgment calls.  However, I think it is reasonable to question whether the office of the Presidency is well served by refusing to allow the White House social secretary to testify under these circumstances.  Party planning is not a core executive branch function, and Congress’ interest in determining whether the President’s security procedures need to be enhanced is strong.  If the refusal to testify is challenged in court, I am not sure that the equities tip in favor of shielding a social secretary from answering questions about how an uninvited couple that hopes to participate in a reality show was able to get into a high-security state dinner at the White House.