One of the unfortunate parts of Bush’s presidency is that people with strong reputations and impressive records went into the administration only to watch their standing fall. Colin Powell used to be a respected statesman. Condi Rice was considered a serious expert on foreign policy. John Snow was a business executive held in high esteem. The Bush White House quietly became a sort of “roach motel” for credible professionals — their good name went in, but couldn’t come out.
As a bit of speechwriting buff, I’ve always considered [tag]Michael Gerson[/tag] the exception to this rule. Largely unknown before joining the Bush team, Gerson’s stature has grown considerably. For all the president’s faults, he’s delivered a few terrific, well-written speeches. And in every case, Gerson was the author who could deftly combine poetic rhetoric with Bush’s simple style.
Unfortunately, Gerson may have been too good. David Kusnet, Bill Clinton’s chief speechwriter 1992 through 1994, wrote a great piece for The New Republic yesterday suggesting the lofty rhetoric set high expectations that incompetent governing could never reach.
Yet even as these disasters unfolded, [tag]Bush[/tag] continued to speak in the eloquent voice that Gerson had created. And that, in the end, was the problem with Gerson’s achievement: He was, put simply, a better [tag]speechwriter[/tag] than Bush was a [tag]president[/tag].
By making his boss sound plausible as commander-in-chief, he set a standard by which Bush’s deeds have been found wanting. At first, [tag]Gerson[/tag]’s eloquence made the president seem compassionate, conciliatory, and conservative, all at the same time. When Bush declared in his first inaugural address that “No insignificant person was ever born,” it was possible to hope that, in his own way, he would try to help poor people lift themselves up and most Americans win their struggles to stay even. But his policies have not delivered on this promise. And as his appealing, lofty rhetoric began to diverge more and more noticeably from the policies he pursued, Bush’s speeches — still elegantly crafted — came to seem more and more like a bag of tricks. He presented policies that would benefit a privileged few as if they were intended to help women, minorities, and the poor; and he embedded his most controversial policies (the Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich) in the most popular initiatives (the fight against terrorism, tax cuts for the middle class). As his presidency has dragged on, these disconnects have become more and more glaring.
That’s an excellent point. I don’t imagine anyone was under the illusion that Bush’s words were his own, but when the president speaks and articulates strong principles, and then his actions reflect the opposite, it undermines the credibility of the White House.
I’m glad Gerson’s reputation has grown over the last six years; he’s really an excellent scribe. But it’s a shame that, in this case, the actor wasn’t nearly as strong as the script writer.