Lessons From the 90's: the Quiet Statesman

Bush 41 is a model for conservatives today trying to navigate these trying times.

I am in the process of finishing up my read of The Quiet Man: The Indispensable Presidency of George H.W. Bush by his first chief of staff John Sununu, and I think it offers some very good practical lessons for conservatives going forward from 2024. The senior Bush was a man who was underappreciated by both conservatives and the liberal media of his own day, but someone who I think the long record of history will be very kind towards. 

I should note that temperamentally and policy wise I am much more of a Reaganite in the limited disputes there were between Bush and the man he served under, but I have come to believe that someone of Bush’s temperament needed to follow up the victories and achievements wrought by Reagan’s more firm and unwavering stances. He was a complement to Reaganism, not a rejection of it. Furthermore, in domestic affairs Bush Sr. has some solid lessons in “boring” politics that could greatly aid contemporary Republicans in crafting both a winning and solidly conservative policy agenda. 

Ronald Reagan was firm and uncompromising in his belief that communism and the “Evil Empire” that propagated it into the world, the Soviet Union, must be defeated and not merely accommodated. Paul Kengor rightly called Reagan “the Crusader” for his firm dedication to defeating the Soviet Union. Reagan’s firm dedication and commitment in policy helped usher in the end of the “Evil Empire” and set the stage for the unraveling of the Iron Curtain. Bush Sr, no less of an anticommunist, inherited a global order in Eastern Europe that was democratizing and being liberated and he had to see to it that the progress did not devolve into chaos or regional

wars or too much corruption. So the 41st President struck a markedly more mellow tone in his dealings with the willing partner in reform, Mikhail Gorbachev. The change in tone from Reagan to Bush has been portrayed by some to denote a lessening commitment to democracy promotion and rollback, but I think this is a false read of the record. Bush was committed to the spread of democracy and the promotion of western values in the former Soviet Republics, but he also did not want to create a situation that undermined Gorbachev’s own reforms or created instability in the newly liberated nations. In short, Bush wanted to make sure Reagan’s accomplishments were durable wins. 

The elder Bush employed a characteristically personal diplomatic style, known for his long, personal, and intense phone and face to face conversations with various world leaders. He was able to balance warming relations with the Soviet leader Gorbachev at the same time as supporting democratic liberalization in Poland, Estonia, and other Eastern European countries. And that was a balancing act indeed, as Bush was concerned with both an unwavering commitment to newly freed nations and also in trying not to impede Gorbachev’s reforms domestically in the Soviet Union. 

The culmination and in many ways ultimate vindication of Bush’s personal diplomatic style was his leadership after the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by the Iraqi dictator Sadam Hussein. Bush leveraged expertly his personal relationships with world leaders from both the Arab world and our Western allies to first forcibly condemn Iraq’s provocation, including historically getting Gorbachev and the Soviet Union to agree with us. This historic unity of the free world was wrought, despite bitter partisan political opposition to the President from Democrats in Congress. Altogether, the use of force in the Desert Storm operations was a masterclass in American leadership and should certainly be celebrated as a major conservative Republican victory in the foreign policy arena. 

On the domestic policy side Bush Sr’s legacy is both more complicated and also intensely relevant to conservatives in our own highly polarized time. It is widely perceived, and I agree, that Bush’s failure to deliver on his now infamous campaign promise, “Read my lips, ‘No new taxes’” was a driving factor in his losing his reelection bid in 1992. But what has been attributed as his greatest failure is, I believe, actually an example of his leadership and profound political sacrifice. Bush was serious about his commitment not to overburden the American taxpayer, but the voting public did not award the 41st President with a Republican Congress, and this fact meant that a conservative President desiring to get things done would have to make serious bipartisan concessions.

Bush’s economic team worked tirelessly with leaders from both parties in Congress to hammer out a budget deal and agreement acceptable to all parties, and at the announcement of said policy, once particular negotiating partner the Georgia Republican congressman Newt Gingrich decided not to show up. Gingrich would later announce his opposition to the budget agreement he had agreed to in negotiations–a cynical political calculation that would wind up benefiting his political career over the next few years. I think Bush’s bipartisan dealmaking falling apart at the hands of a populist upstart was an early harbinger of our own deeply polarized political moment. 

Despite domestic opposition from both Democrats and populist Republicans, Bush was able to get several important policy wins and shape them in a more conservative direction. From his free market based approach to conservationist policy in the Clean Air Act amendment of 1990, which balanced concerns over job killing regulations with real concerns about the level of pollution in the air, to his championing of parental choice in the fights over education and child care reform. One major domestic policy initiative of the Bush era was the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which advanced the human rights and dignity of disabled Americans. 

My key takeaway from my study of George H.W. Bush’s presidency is that he championed, in a positive way, a kind of “boring” politics. In a highly polarized time, like our own, I think conservative Republicans eager to defeat the Democrats radicalism could take a  page from the elder Bush’s playbook. Moving policy slightly in your direction is more of a win, than losing the ball altogether, and standing firmly and strongly with American allies abroad and playing up those relationships will yield a more secure world than constantly berating our allies in stump speeches and on social media. Also, as a social conservative, I recognize that our cause is not helped in the long term by bellicose red meat pandering but by steady, even handed leadership that maintains a respectful attitude toward domestic opposition. 

No matter the outcome of this year’s November election, going forward I think it is essential for Republican leaders and standard bearers seeking to unite their party and our country around a conservative agenda to take lessons from the Gipper-Bush dynamic. Knowing when to utilize Reagan’s firm tone or Bush’s diplomatic phone calls is an essential feature of principled conservative leadership. The leaders to master this dynamic will seize the future. 

“There is a time for everything, 

and a season for every activity under the heavens: 

a time to be born and a time to die, 

a time to plant and a time to uproot, 

a time to kill and a time to heal, 

a time to tear down and a time to build, 

a time to weep and a time to laugh,

5 

a timeto mourn anda timeto dance, 

a timeto scatter stones anda timeto gather them, 

a timeto embrace anda timetorefrain from embracing, 

a timeto search anda timeto give up, 

a timetokeep anda timeto throw away, 

a timeto tear anda timeto mend, 

a timeto be silent anda timeto speak, 

a timeto love anda timeto hate, 

a time for war anda time for peace.” -Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Joey Carrion is a political science student at Andrews University, studying pre-law as well as psychology. He co-hosts the Gio and Joey podcast and operates the Michigan Reagan Caucus Twitter/X account. @adventistcowboy