HAOL, Núm. 10 (Primavera, 2006), 17-36 ISSN 1696-2060 LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON? A COMPARISON OF THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF GEORGE H. W. BUSH AND GEORGE W. BUSH Marc J. O’Reilly1 ; Wesley B. Renfro2 1 Heilderber Collage, United States. E-mail: [email protected] 2 University of Connecticut, United States. E-mail: [email protected] Recibido: 3 Diciembre 2005 / Revisado: 23 Enero 2006 / Aceptado: 10 Febrero 2006 / Publicación Online: 15 Junio 2006 Abstract: This article applies cognitive (i.e., In 1992, the year Bill Clinton defeated H.W. leadership) and poliheuristic approaches to Bush in the November presidential election, the foreign-policy decision making to explain incumbent struck many Americans as a variances in the policies of George H.W. Bush bumbling New England Yankee whose mangled and George W. Bush. Juxtaposing these related syntax and unfamiliarity with checkout counter approaches highlights the how and why of scanners invited derision. As Clinton and Ross presidential decision making, providing a Perot attracted disaffected and other voters with synthetic, though more cogent, understanding of their folksy style, Bush, whose popularity foreign-policy analysis -- especially as it following Operation Desert Storm seemed to pertains to presidencies. The initial section of guarantee him a second term, stumbled badly as the article discusses the two theories. The the campaign climaxed. His defeat seemingly following section examines important decisions assured him a spot in the pantheon of utterly via case studies – one for each administration. forgettable presidents, the successor to the The final section analyzes the decisions in the popular Ronald Reagan but in no way his heir. context of the theories. While this article emphasizes the individual level of analysis, Bush’s qualities, often ridiculed while he served structural as well as domestic factors will also in the White House, found favor within a be discussed. decade, however, as Clinton and George W. Keywords: decision making, foreign policy, Bush exhibited traits often associated with their George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, “Baby Boom” generation: arrogance, self- leadership, poliheuristic approach. servitude, and indulgence. As Americans ______________________ watched Clinton and W. Bush eschew responsibility for their political and personal n February 12, 2006, Garry Trudeau’s misdeeds, many yearned for the propriety and Doonesbury cartoon juxtaposed the integrity of George H.W. Bush. Such nostalgia, O presidency of George Herbert Walker typical of much presidential history, overlooked Bush (1989-1993) with that of his son, George genuine failings, both his administration’s and Walker Bush (2001-present). Trudeau’s narrator his own, but this re-examination of his praised the elder Bush as “moderate, informed, presidency prompted an obvious question: Why prudent, responsible, forgiving, and modest” was George W. Bush not more like his father? while vilifying the younger Bush as immoral Furthermore, given George H.W. Bush’s and reckless, traits that have yielded disastrous acknowledged foreign-policy expertise, why did policies, both foreign and domestic. Trudeau his son’s diplomacy differ so starkly from his presented this installment of his cartoon as a own? mea culpa. During H.W. Bush’s tenure in the White House, Trudeau had maligned him The answers to these questions presume obvious consistently as “ineffectual and out of touch, a differences in policy and style, yet important caretaker president with no vision for the similarities exist and are important in explaining country” -- criticisms Democrats and many the foreign policies of both men. For example, Republicans repeated loudly and often1. George H.W. Bush authorized a U.S. invasion of © Historia Actual Online 2006 17 Like Father, Like Son? Marc J. O’Reilly; Wesley B. Renfro Panama in December 1989 and, like his son, George H.W. took the presidential oath of office defied international law and acted without the in January 1989 having served as Chief U.S. support of allies or the U.N. Although the Liaison to the People’s Republic of China, younger Bush receives much criticism for his Ambassador to the United Nations, Director of unwillingness to work with important allies, he the Central Intelligence Agency, and Vice has placed a premium on cooperating with President of the United States. Like his father, France and Germany, two countries that George W. worked in the Texas oil industry. vociferously opposed his Iraq policy, on the After a stint as co-owner of the Texas Rangers matter of Iranian nuclear proliferation. baseball club, he became Governor of Texas. Contrasting father and son may therefore not be Unlike “41,” he did not fight in a war (his father as easy as one thinks. Critics of George W. Bush was the youngest Navy pilot in World War II), may now tout his father’s foreign policy as although he served in the Texas Air National cautious, righteous, and sagacious, but this kind Guard. Importantly, George W. embraced of ex post facto analysis belies many Christianity following years of self-described contemporary assessments of George H.W. “hard drinking”. Bush’s diplomacy and military policy and, more seriously, points to a possible selectivity bias. With the above in mind, this article applies Given how journalists, policy analysts, and cognitive (i.e., leadership) and poliheuristic scholars scrutinize U.S. foreign policy, rarely approaches to foreign-policy decision making to does a serving president receive plaudits for his explain variances in the policies of George H.W. decisions. Presidents earn kudos only when their Bush and George W. Bush. Juxtaposing these policies can be understood and appreciated in related approaches highlights the how and why proper context – some of Harry Truman’s, of presidential decision making, providing a Dwight Eisenhower’s, and Reagan’s more synthetic, though more cogent, understanding of controversial policies come to mind. foreign-policy analysis -- especially as it pertains to presidencies. The initial section of Still, despite this caveat, a comparison between the article discusses the two theories. The the foreign policies of George H.W. Bush and following section examines important decisions George W. Bush is apropos for several reasons. via case studies – one for each administration. First, their familial ties (they are the first pater The final section analyzes the decisions in the et filius to achieve the presidency since John context of the theories. While this article Adams and John Quincy Adams in the late 18th emphasizes the individual level of analysis, and early 19th century) draw attention to structural as well as domestic factors will also psychological and sociological issues such as be discussed. the father-son dynamic, core beliefs, and generational effects. Second, George H.W. 1. COGNITIVE THEORY & LEADERSHIP Bush’s close relationship with his son afforded STYLES him and continues to afford him every opportunity to counsel his son -- unlike John Following the works of Thucydides, Titus Adams, who died in his offspring’s second year Livius, and many others, scholars have noted in office. Likewise, George W. Bush could and how individuals, no matter the background, can ask for his father’s advice. As well, George aptitude, and skill, help shape or determine W. no doubt learned much working for the man outcomes – political, economic, diplomatic, he affectionately calls “41” (as in forty-first military, or otherwise. Although systemic and president) while the latter occupied the White domestic variables can explain many events, House. Third, the Bushes represent different analysts must examine individuals as well, so factions of the Republican Party, both that national policies can be properly and fully ideological and geographical. While George understood2. The individual level of analysis H.W. is a Rockefeller Republican, George W. is spotlights issues such as previous experiences, a neo-Reaganite. Although they both graduated personality, beliefs, character, intellectual from Yale University, the elder Bush oozes East capabilities, thought processes, capacity for Coast establishment (he grew up in Connecticut, “learning”, leadership qualities, and negotiation the son of a U.S. senator, and owns a styles3. All these idiosyncratic factors combine Kennedyesque compound in Kennebunkport, to produce individual and group decisions. Maine), while the younger Bush epitomizes Texas cocksureness. Finally, each president Leadership often separates wise decisions from came to the job with a very different résumé. foolhardy ones. Effective leaders achieve 18 © Historia Actual Online 2006 Marc J. O’Reilly; Wesley B. Renfro Like Father, Like Son? success, however defined, both for themselves others around one’s message”. For directive and their countries. Conversely, ineffective leaders, “[f]ocus of attention is on maintaining leaders, no matter their preparation and ability, one’s own and the government’s status and prove incapable of effecting desired results. That acceptance by others by engaging in actions on leadership matters in most cases, then, should be the world stage that enhance the state’s self-evident. As Margaret Hermann and Joe reputation”. For influential leaders, “[f]ocus of Hagan assert, “[l]eaders define states’ attention is on building cooperative relationships international and domestic constraints. Based on with other governments and states in order to their perceptions and interpretations, they build play a leadership