| http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,556133,00.html
Ripples in the presidential gene pool What if George Bush Jr thinks he's compensating for his father? Mark Lawson Saturday September 22, 2001 The American ambassador to London, a friend of the Bush clan, mentioned in an interview this week that friends refer to the two presidential Georges in the family as "41" and "43", their numbers in the White House succession. Though it is an amusing anecdote, this detail touches on a small but potentially crucial peculiarity in the current international emergency. Because of the late age at which politicians peak, it has been normal for politicians to ascend to the presidency either as orphans or certainly fatherless. Even the uncommonly young Bill Clinton (aged 46 when he became what the Bush family would call 42) failed to disprove this rule, his dad having died before he was born. And so, in another example of history's liking for big effects, it happens that the first president in many years to have to worry about buying father's day cards has a pop who didn't have to be shown where the restrooms in the West Wing were. At the time of the younger Bush's "election", this column reflected on the disadvantages of dynasties. Not only did America face genetically descended weaknesses of speech and manner, but there was the psychological risk that both Georges would see themselves as avenging or completing the family's first, failed administration. These theoretical fears are now queasily real. For what were the odds that America's two echoing presidencies would prove to be the only recent pair required to fight a serious war and with one of the same declared enemies: Saddam Hussein? A photograph was taken at last week's memorial service in Washington of 41 giving an encouraging squeeze to the hand of 43, while Barbara Bush beams the satisfied smile of perhaps the only woman in two centuries to have seen two American presidents naked. This image was intended to be touching, but I think it emphasised the bizarre political and psychological circumstances which now apply at the White House. Because of the doubts about his character and election - which a series of elegantly written addresses have not dispelled - it's common for both 43's admirers and his detractors to voice the consolation that he has experienced people around him. But it's time to think hard about what it means that one of those advisers has the experience of having been his father and of being president. On the question of image, any paternal counsel given may have dangerous consequences. The court of George I believes that a large contribution to the loss of the White House was the perception that the president was a wimp. Despite the Texan address which he had acquired for oil and political reasons, America's leader from 1989 to 1993 was in essence a quail-shooting East Coast aristocrat. Photo-opportunities involving horseshoe throwing could never chase away the rumour of the silver spoon. His son does a better impression of a Texan, but the accusation of the family wimp-gene pursued him when, on the first day of the terrorist crisis, he seemed to cower in jet or bunker away from Washington. In any Polonius-like speech delivered by the first president Bush to his boy, a key instruction would surely be to sound as tough as possible. We may be hearing the evidence of this lesson in the president's frequent growling about smoking terrorists out of their holes. Fans of the Bush clan ask us to be glad that 41, a foreign policy expert, is on hand to chat to 43, who a year ago didn't know the name of the leader of Pakistan. But how pleased should we be? For it is the deepest regret of President George HW Bush that he showed restraint towards Iraq at the end of the Gulf war and failed to finish off Saddam Hussein. In 1991, American foreign policy was moderated by the shadow of a previous over-reaction in Vietnam. The danger now is the opposite: that military reaction may be inflamed by the perception of a previous under-reach. We may come to regret that the current US commander-in-chief's bloodline foreign adviser is almost bound to counsel the dangers of having any missiles left in the silos at the end. The consequences of some Freudian compensation for the failures of the father could be horrifying. There is, though, one area in which we should hope that a father-son dialogue is taking place. Attributed to the first President Bush is a joke which may have alienated some crucial rightwing voters. Entering a Republican party "prayer breakfast", he's alleged to have wisecracked: "I'm the only person in this room who's only been born once." This resistance to the biblical literalism of right-wing American politics could now be a useful cooling whisper in the ear of his son, who leads an administration packed with born-agains including himself and who may know too well the theology of Armageddon. Both 41 and 43 will be aware that there has been considerable nostalgia in America during the past 10 days for the gestural and rhetorical skills of 42. So far, history has shown us that the Bush family does failed, one-term presidencies in which a major military adventure with low loss of life fails to dispel an overall feeling of unsuitability. Many would settle for the same the second time around, but the family's dream of 43 avenging 41 is a dangerous contribution to the volatility of the current situation. |
