AND ANOTHER THING

Wimps, mediocrities, nonentities and plausible rogues

PAUL JOHNSON

It is fashionable to deplore the low state of American politics by pointing to the competing inadequacies of the various presidential contenders, Republican and Democrat. It is true they are a sorry lot. I have never thought much of George Bush and have been agreeably surprised by how comparatively well he has done. During the Gulf war, he even looked, for a day or two, a major statesman, though I think it should be remembered that it was Margaret Thatcher who argued him into a tough stance on the Kuwait invasion as far back as August 1990; all flowed from that early decision.

He has been a lucky president in that events, above all the collapse of the USSR, have flowed his way, but he has rarely looked in charge of them. As a domestic leader, he is indecisive, unimaginative and lacking in convictions of any kind. It is a commentary on the feeble hold he has on Republican loyalties that a man like Pat Buchanan, who has no ideas except Protec- tion, should make such a dent in the Bush following.

As for the Democrats, it is a daunting thought that they may have to choose between Bill Clinton and Paul Tsongas, with the even more disturbing possibility that the sinister and unattractive Mario Cuomo, a so-called Catholic who has sold the pass on every issue, could snatch the nomination by a late entry. Bush, I imagine, will beat any of them, but it is little consola- tion that the world's first sole superpower will be under his hesitant control for the next four years.

However, it has to be recognised that the odds are often against the best man getting to the White House. There have been long periods in American history when the country has been ruled, or rather not ruled, by mediocrities and even nonen- tities.

The point is disguised by the undoubted fact that the new Republic got off to a fine start. George Washington was a great and wise man, an outstanding example for all times and places of how a newly indepen- dent ex-colony should be steered. Then there was a distinguished succession from Massachusetts and Virginia: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Munroe, John Quincy Adams, all civilised, well-read men of strong principles, though sometimes marred by personal faults. They had the further advantage, for a young

state, of being drawn from the ruling estab- lishment and so possessing a definite sense of public obligation. General Jackson, the first parvenu, who reached the White House in 1829, was a born leader who proved a president of iron will if sometimes confused notions.

After that it was downhill all the way to the Civil War. Jackson's successor, Martin Van Buren, was a dapper New York politico known as the Little Magician, who could swing things how he liked in his own state but who never mastered national politics and took the United States into deep recession. The two outstanding men of the age, Henry Clay and Daniel Web- ster, never got to the White House. In 1840, Clay was told by the party bosses that he was simply not popular enough to get the Whig nomination. Instead they picked a successful soldier, William Harrison (American presidents are nearly always lawyers or generals), who compounded his inadequacies by promptly expiring within weeks of taking office, thus letting in a sec- ond-rater called John Tyler. The next man, James Polk, was no better. Then came another lacklustre general, Zachary Taylor, who also died in office, producing the presidency of the ridiculous Millard Fillmore. The last two presidents before the War Between the States, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, did nothing to avert it.

There followed the outstanding presiden- cy of Abraham Lincoln, and the more one studies what that remarkable man said and did the more one admires his intelligence, courage and wit. But he was a bright episode in a melancholy procession. Andrew Johnson, who took over when Lin- coln was murdered, was so tactless he wrecked the great man's inheritance and nearly got himself successfully impeached.

General Ulysses Grant was a fine general with little political judgment who allowed his White House to be infested by crooks.

The quality of presidents from the Civil War to the early years of the 20th century was so low that, between Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, the best of them was Grover Cleveland, and that is not saying much.

In the 20th century it is true that the US presidential system has produced a much better roll-call. Woodrow Wilson's record of legislation and national leadership was of the highest standard until his health col- lapsed. Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan all made fine national leaders, judicious and decisive. I would add to their number Calvin Coolidge, a particu- lar favourite of mine, and I suppose some people would still include Franklin Roo- sevelt and J.F. Kennedy. It can also be argued that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both brought low by events over which they lost control, were men of formidable ability with huge achievements to their credit; and few men in US history have understood its system better or worked it so well.

However, I suspect that the tortuous pro- cedures whereby Americans now elect their leader and the horrible snakes-and-ladders game each is forced to endure are shifting the result back in the direction of medi- ocrity, or worse. Bush is beginning to look more in the tradition of Taft or Harding, Hoover or Carter; indeed, he has actually begun to sound like Hoover. The Demo- cratic contenders in recent years have been so bad as to revive memories of Polk and Fillmore.

The truth is that the Americans expect too much of their presidents: absolute integrity, in a political system where multi- million personal fund-raising is essential; monk-like chastity in a permissive age; political correctness of an anodyne sub- servience which can only be maintained by suppressing precisely those opinions and quirks which make a politician interesting; and, furthermore, a willingness to be fierce- ly interrogated on all these and other issues by tinpot media Grand Inquisitors. Many men of decency, character and ability, how- ever strong their sense of public service, will not submit to these conditions, and quite rightly. They would have been found unacceptable by all of America's first seven presidents. A media democracy like the United States, where the public demands the right to know everything, illustrates the principle that the best is the enemy of the good. You cannot get perfect presidents any way, and this way you do not even get good ones.

A surge of grassroots opinion can still propel forward an unfancied outsider like

Reagan — dismissed by smart Georgetown

opinion, I well remember, as 'impossible' as late as spring 1980 — but the more likely product is going to be an inadequate man like Bush. Or, quite possibly, a plausible rogue.