Bush and Obama: Round Two

In the United States, there has already been an argument over credit: Do events in the Middle East prove that one president was right and the other one mistaken? Perhaps both of them were right?

The battle for credit began even before the protesters scattered from Tahrir Square, before Hosni Mubarak decided to resign, before Moammar Gadhafi sent his air force to bomb his countrymen. The fight is not going on between two presidents, George Bush and Barack Obama, but rather between the supporters, advocates, commentators and loyalists.

In essence: Do the events in the Middle East prove that Bush was correct and that his policy of democratization is destined to win? Or do they actually prove that Bush erred, that his methods and policy spoiled instead of improved, and that Obama, in his wisdom, is the one enabling the Middle East to at last free itself from the burden of evil dictators?

The combat for credit is important not only because it will determine in the future who was right and who was wrong, it also will allow historians of the immediate and distant future to score Bush and Obama based on long-term achievements and influence, not just spins of a short-term policy. This is important because what one can learn from its lessons potentially can be instrumental for years and presidents to come.

But it’s not necessary to decide this fight by a knockout: with one right and one wrong. In fact, there is not necessarily a reason to see in it a battle between two conflicting positions.

It could be that Bush and Obama — never mind how far-fetched this possibility might sound to their devote adherents or impassioned opponents — are actually a successful pair of complementary opposites. Bush could be right for his time, and Obama could be right for his time: Bush, the one who spread the seeds of revolution, and Obama, the one who’ll harvest the fruit with the required caution.

There was, not so long ago, another revolution that invited this kind of reciprocal partnership. It was less striking because the two men being discussed were from the same party.

Isn’t the Second Bush Reagan’s Successor?

Still, there were big differences in policy and personality between Ronald Reagan (who spent most of the eighties of the last century preaching to take down the Berlin Wall and to liberate Eastern Europe from the oppressive yoke of communism) and George Bush Sr. (during whose presidency the political earthquake of the Soviet Union’s collapse took place).

Sometimes their differences seem almost as big as those between the second Bush and Obama. One can also find lines of similarity in the roles these presidents played (and, appropriately, differences): the aggressive Reagan, reviled by the left as an instigator of strife and war, a tough ideologue — seemingly — and the moderate, circumspect Bush, the arch realist.

Reagan used to shake the world, rock it — while Bush oversaw it very carefully. When the leaders of the Communist party decided to launch democratic reforms, Bush responded by asking them “to refrain from stupid actions.”*

When the Berlin Wall fell and the reporters asked Bush why he did not seem elated, he replied: “… I’m just not an emotional kind of guy.” As stated before, there are numerous differences between that revolution and this one, but anyway, it’s worthwhile to take a look at this revolution and ask: Isn’t the second Bush Reagan’s successor? This he would definitely like to see himself.

Isn’t Obama the successor of the first Bush? It has already been said a lot, including in this column, that there is a surprising resemblance between the Democratic administration of Obama and the Republican one of Bush, the father.

Political wheeling and dealing demand a determination of who was right and who was wrong, to slap Obama for over-eagerness (as the Israeli right wing does) or over-cautiousness (as the American right wing does). However, it’s possible to try and understand the logic in Bush’s actions at those times and in Obama’s at these times.

[We can] determine that Bush had foresight when he insisted that in the Middle East, too, democracy is preferable over dictatorship — and that Obama is also doing the right thing in attempting to navigate these turbulent waters with moderation, responsibility and without harsh words. Like Bush of the first kind.

*Editor’s note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be verified.