As always, he did the right thing for the country he had served in so many ways, so faithfully.
—Senator Rob Portman
Looking for a fight?
Mention to a George H. W. Bush family member or friend the 1987 Newsweek cover that suggested the former World War II pilot was a wimp. Specifically, the headline read: “Fighting the ‘Wimp Factor.’”
Yeah, that will get you a fight.
Newsweek ran the now infamous cover story shortly after then Vice President Bush announced he was running for President. You could say it got the campaign off to a rather bumpy start and enraged his supporters.
When President Bush died in 2018, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas wrote a column that could be called his mea culpa:
“The clear implication of the cover story (which I edited, penciling in the word ‘wimp’ over the objection of the story’s reporter, Margaret Warner) was that Bush somehow lacked the inner fortitude to lead the free world.
“How wrong we were.”
This chapter will help Mr. Thomas count the ways in which he was wrong.
When I asked President Bush’s White House staff to write about what they learned from him, the answers were variations of the same theme: He had the courage to do what he felt was right—right for the country; and sometimes right for the world.
Long before he took the oath of office, George H. W. Bush showed us he was not afraid to do the unexpected; to take a path less traveled; to make the tough and sometimes bold decision.
To show courage.
At age twenty, when his plane was hit during a bombing run, he first finished his mission—dumping his payload over a key Japanese radio tower—before parachuting out.
At age twenty-four, after graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Yale, he turned down the safe career choice of following his father to Wall Street and instead struck out on his own, driving his Studebaker to Texas to take a job as an oil equipment clerk. (However, the real hero of this part of the story might be Barbara Bush, who of course made the move with her husband and their two-year-old son, George W., sharing for a while a duplex with a mother-daughter prostitute team.)
Fast-forwarding nearly fifty years, President Bush shocked a lot of his friends and fellow Republicans when he very publicly resigned from the National Rifle Association in 1995, after he received what he considered a deeply offensive fund-raising letter.
These are examples of some of the very personal decisions he made as a private citizen, but he was no less bold when leading from a public platform.
The first best example came in 1968, when Congressman George Bush voted for the Fair Housing Act, designed to end housing discrimination. The vote came in the same month when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, and civil rights riots were raging in our cities. Congressman Bush’s conservative constituents were not happy with his vote. Most of them thought it was just fine for Blacks and whites to live across the railroad tracks from each other.
I am being fitted for my lead underwear, he wrote to his friend Chase Untermeyer after he had received five hundred letters against his vote; two letters in favor. Nevertheless, he went back to Houston to face his constituents in a town hall meeting. Here are excerpts from his speech:
And now I’d like to frankly discuss my recent vote for the civil rights bill, a vote which has brought some approval and much concern…
Much of the other mail was persuasive and well done—some of it was filled with hatred…
The unsigned letter.
The threat.
The “sell-out” approach.
The phone call.
The “nigger-lover”—this in 1968 with our country ripped apart at the seams.
The base and mean emotionalism that makes me bow my head in sadness.
There is an irony here—much of the mail comes from people who have written me in favor of the Dirksen amendment for prayer in schools…
Here is my position—I liked some of the provisions—I didn’t like others…
What this Bill does do in this area is to remove an obstacle—what it does do is try to offer a promise or a hope—a realization of The American Dream.
In Vietnam I chatted with many Negro soldiers. They were fighting, and some were dying, for the ideals of this Country; some talked about coming back to get married and to start their lives over.
Somehow it seems fundamental that this guy should have hope. A hope that if he saves some money, and if he wants to break out of a ghetto, and if he is a good character and if he meets every requirement of purchaser—the door will not be slammed solely because he is a Negro, or because he speaks with a Mexican accent.
In these troubled times, fair play is basic. The right to hope is basic. And so I suggest that there are things wrong with this Bill and there are things right with it.
I have been accused of killing the Republican Party. With one of the more conservative voting records in the House, I am now accused by some of killing the Republican Party by this one vote…
But I don’t believe it. All Republican Senators voting except 3 voted for this Bill—
100 out of 184 Republicans in the House voted for it.
Richard Nixon and about every national Republican leader advocated its passage…
But I voted from conviction.
And so I voted… not out of intimidation or fear, not stampeded by riots—but because of a feeling deep down in my heart that this was the right thing for me to do. That this was the right thing for America.
All these years later, Mary Matthews Raether, then Congressman Bush’s legislative assistant, still remembers vividly how difficult the days after the Fair Housing Act vote were:
Although the Bush experience of the activities around the Fair Housing Act of 1968 has been written about often, I don’t remember reading about its effect on his congressional staff. The number of telephone calls overwhelmed us. Most of them were not nice.
Mr. Bush was in Houston soon after the vote and overheard the vehemence of these calls firsthand. He calmly walked out of his office, took the receiver from the hand of his office manager, and told the caller that they should not treat his people like that, and slammed down the telephone. (By way of background, the congressman from his first day in office established rules: Staff should see that all constituent mail was responded to within forty-eight hours, preferably less. Telephone calls were to be handled politely by the appropriate staffer in the office. I guess he thought this was an exception.)
We were all proud that Congressman Bush needed to vote for the welfare of the country at large rather than cater to the prejudices and biases of some of his constituents.
A few years later, as chairman of the Republican National Committee, George Bush would again disappoint some of his Republican colleagues and friends when after months of trying to defend President Nixon against the charges of Watergate, he advised the President of the United States he should resign. Here are excerpts from a letter he wrote to his four sons in the midst of the tumult. I took out the specifics of the scandal and skipped ahead to the lessons he wanted his sons1 to learn from Watergate:
July 23, 1974
Dear Lads,
We are living in “the best of times and the worst of times.”
You can sort out our blessings as a family. We have a close family; we have a lot of love around. You guys come home (and this sure is a blessing for Mum and me). We’ve got enough things. If we get sick, we can get well, probably, or at least we can afford to pay the doctor and the schools.
More blessings—you guys know no prejudice. You judge people on their worth. You give your grandmother and your parents a lot of happiness. You will do well in a world full of opportunity. Our country gives us a whale of a lot, and so we are privileged people in a privileged country. We are in the best of times.
My Dad felt strongly the firm obligation to put something into the system. He felt compelled to give, to be involved and to lead—and that brings me to the worst of times. I mean the part about Watergate and the abysmal amorality it connotes. You must know my inner feelings on this. Because of my job and because of my past associations with the President, it might well be that you don’t know how I feel.
… It’s important because as Dad helped inculcate into us a sense of public service, I’d like you boys to save some time in your lives for cranking something back in. It occurred to me your own idealism might be diminished if you felt your Dad condoned the excesses of men you knew to have been his friends or associates.
Where to begin—The President first. He is enormously complicated. He is capable of great kindness. When Dad was dying of cancer, I was leaving the Oval Office one day, having conferred on some UN matter, and I lagged behind to mention this to the President. His response was full of kindness and caring. He tried then to phone and wish Dad well…
You should know that I continue to respect the President for his enormous accomplishments and for some personal things too.
But you must know that I have been disappointed and disillusioned by much that has been revealed about the man from Watergate tapes and other sources…
I shall stop with this gratuitous advice. Listen to your conscience. Don’t be afraid not to join the mob—if you feel inside it’s wrong.
Don’t confuse being ‘soft’ with seeing the other guy’s point of view.
In judging your President, give him the enormous credit he’s due for substantive achievements. Try to understand the ‘why’ of the National Security concern; but understand too that the power accompanied by arrogance is very dangerous. It’s particularly dangerous when men with no real experience have it—for they can abuse our great institutions.
Avoid self-righteously turning on a friend, but have your friendship mean enough that you would be willing to share with your friend your judgment.
Don’t assign away your judgment to achieve power.
These have been a tough 18 months. I feel battered and disillusioned. I feel betrayed in a sense by those who did wrong and tracked corruption and institutional subversion into that beautiful White House. In trying to build Party, I feel like the guy in charge of the Titanic boiler room—one damn shock after another…
Civility will return to Washington eventually. The excesses condoned by the press will give way to reason and fair play. Personalities will change and our system will have proved that it works—more slowly than some would want—less efficiently than some would decree—but it works and gives us—even in adversity—great stability.
I expect it has not been easy for you to have your Dad be head of the RNC at this time. I know your peers must put you in funny positions at times by little words in jest that don’t seem funny or by saying things that hurt you because of your family loyalty.
I can’t wait to see you all in August. I’m still family champ in backgammon.
Devotedly,
Dad
Which brings us to his presidency.
One of President Bush’s most consequential—and courageous—decisions was the 1990 budget deal. Consequential for two reasons: (1) It later was credited for setting the stage for the economic boom of the 1990s; and (2) it probably cost George H. W. Bush the presidency.
Then, like now, the federal budget was seriously out of whack. Spending levels were 22 percent of the gross domestic product; revenues were only 19 percent. The President was determined to do something about it, but he had a rather large problem: He had famously promised in 1988, in his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, he would not raise taxes. His exact words: “Read my lips—no new taxes.” But the Democrats, in control of Congress, announced they would not agree to spending cuts unless the President compromised on raising revenue.
And there it was, THAT word: “compromise.”
President Bush knew from Day One that the budget would be one of his bigger and more difficult challenges. He said in his inauguration speech:
To my friends—and yes, I do mean friends—in the loyal opposition—and yes, I mean loyal: I put out my hand. I am putting out my hand to you, Mr. Speaker. I am putting out my hand to you Mr. Majority Leader.2 For this is the thing: This is the age of the offered hand. We can’t turn back clocks, and I don’t want to. But when our fathers were young, Mr. Speaker, our differences ended at the water’s edge. And we don’t wish to turn back time, but when our mothers were young, Mr. Majority Leader, the Congress and the Executive were capable of working together to produce a budget on which this nation could live. Let us negotiate soon and hard. But in the end, let us produce. The American people await action. They didn’t send us here to bicker. They ask us to rise above the merely partisan. “In crucial things, unity”—and this, my friends, is crucial.
We will turn the story over to former senator Rob Portman, who in 1990 was deputy assistant for Legislative Affairs on the White House staff:
While doing advance work for Vice President Bush and then serving in his White House, I had the chance to learn from GHWB simply by watching how he conducted himself. He led by example, not by preaching.
I remember a bunch of instances where 41 demonstrated his character but one stands out because the consequences were so significant.
It involves the controversial decision that many believe was the primary reason he lost his 1992 reelection campaign. Two years into his first term, in 1990, with Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress, the deficit was rising and the economy faltering. Against the advice of his political advisers, 41 decided what was best for the country was to set aside his “no new taxes” pledge, and work with Congress to achieve a budget agreement to reduce the deficit and help the economy from falling into a recession by cutting spending and raising taxes.
As a member of the Legislative Affairs team, I sat behind the President in the cabinet room for his meetings with senators, members of Congress, and his cabinet.
The advice he got from his economic team was that without action, the growing deficit and weakening economy were headed in a dangerous direction. I heard the President being told that if Congress did not act, foreign investors would pull back from US Treasuries, raising interest rates and adding to our woes. The President firmly believed that the fragile economy was going to get worse without a deficit reduction plan.
He was also told in every meeting with Democrats that with Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, cuts to spending—especially mandatory spending3—were possible only if there was also new revenue. It was clear that was the price to get an agreement.
The 1990 agreement, which was negotiated at Andrews Air Force Base, did raise income taxes but only slightly—from 28 percent to 31 percent—but relied more on other revenue raisers.4 It also cut mandatory (entitlement) spending by over $100 billion, put caps on domestic discretionary spending, and provided more funding for national defense.
Despite the political fallout, 41 demonstrated political courage and character by doing what he knew was right for the country. He also showed character through his willingness to take the heat. He told members of the Republican Party that they should blame him.
Tell them you really held your nose and that you hate that bastard in the White House, he suggested in a closed-door meeting with Republican members of Congress. He also said he would ask Republican voters to forgive them as they supported this wayward President.
Although President Bush went on to lose the election in 1992, the economy did improve in the fourth quarter of the year—just not in time to convince the voters. And the deficit reduction was real, forming the basis for a balanced budget by 1998.
As always, he did the right thing for the country he had served in so many ways, so faithfully.
We now know that President Bush was well aware of the consequences of the budget deal. As early as 1989, after meeting with a group of economists about how to fix the problem, he wrote in his diary: I think some of these [proposals] could mean a one-term Presidency, but it’s that important for the country.
In 2014, a few years after this diary entry became public, he received the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. The citation said in part: “In order to reach the deal, Bush agreed to a tax increase as part of the compromise, and he was pilloried by conservatives for doing so. Although he recognized the 1990 budget deal might doom his prospects for reelection, he did what he thought was best for the country and has since been credited with helping to lay the foundation of the economic growth of the 1990s that followed.”
It seems fair to give President Bush the last word on this topic. In All the Best, he called it the biggest challenge of his life “by far.” (Maybe he forgot being shot down?) Here is what he wrote nine years after “the deal”:
We eventually did get a budget deal, and although it was not as good as our original one, it was a major step in the direction of getting our deficit under control. Through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, it slashed the accumulated deficit by $500 billion over five years. We also set strict limits on discretionary spending. I will confess to feeling a little vindicated in 1998 when the federal budget deficit was finally erased and a number of economists, journalists, and government officials cited “Bush’s 1990 budget compromise” as the beginning of the end of our deficit problem.5
1 In All the Best, President Bush’s book of letters published in 1998, he footnoted that at the time he wrote this letter, he must have thought Doro was not old enough to deal with Watergate. She was fourteen.
2 The Speaker of the House was Jim Wright; the Senate majority leader was George Mitchell. Tom Foley would be the Speaker by June and would remain so throughout the rest of 41’s presidency.
3 Mandatory spending is the part of the federal budget spent on programs required by law, such as Social Security and Medicare.
4 For example, consumption taxes were raised, such as the gas tax. Consumption taxes are defined as taxes on what people spend and not what they earn.
5 Sadly, we know it was not the end of the “deficit problem.” It has come roaring back.