WHO WAS GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH?

By Edwin Cooney

So, who was this man named George Herbert Walker Bush? What made him tick? I think I know. See if you agree!

Born on Thursday, June 12th, 1924, George H. W. Bush was truly a remarkable public servant and even a gentleman — most of the time. Upon his passing on Friday night, November 30th, 2018,  he was the oldest ex-president in our history. “Now that he belongs to the ages,” as War Secretary Edwin Stanton said of Abraham Lincoln, there is a sense of loneliness in millions of hearts.

His birthplace was Milton, Massachusetts. He was named after his maternal grandfather, George Herbert Walker, then an investment banker living in St. Louis, Missouri. His paternal grandfather was Samuel P. Bush, an episcopal minister.

His father was Prescott Bush, a native of Columbus Ohio, who was elected to the United States Senate from the State of Connecticut in 1952 as an Eisenhower Republican — fiscally conservative but internationally and socially progressive. (In July 1960, President Eisenhower included Prescott Bush in a private list of the ten Republicans most qualified to serve as President of the United States.) Prescott Bush’s Eisenhower Republicanism would be firmly repudiated by the wing of the GOP which young George would seek to be a part of beginning in 1964.

Dorothy (Walker) Bush, a star athlete from Kennebunkport, Maine, was his mother. Her father was, in addition to being a highly successful businessman and investment banker, the amateur heavyweight boxing champion of the State of Missouri between 1921 and 1923 and was one of the founders of the American Golf Association. He also founded the annual Walker Cup amateur Golf tournament between American and British golfers.

Like so many wealthy parents of that era, Prescott and Dorothy Bush strongly and strictly instilled in their offspring what has often been called noblesse oblige - that is, that not only must they refrain from boasting of their status in life, they had a firm moral obligation to public service to repay society for the fiscal, social and political advantages  which they had gained through society.

In addition to his immediate heritage (his father and his mother as well as his paternal and maternal grandparents), George H. W. Bush has a fascinating collateral ancestry.

His fourth cousin seven times removed is a gentleman by the name of Benedict Arnold. (I don’t recall that cousin Benedict was recognized during last week’s tributes to Mr. Bush — do you?)

President Bush’s fifth cousin four times removed was our fourteenth president, Franklin Pierce. (He was also Barbara (Pierce) Bush’s great uncle.)

Theodore Roosevelt is President Bush’s seventh cousin three times removed.

Another seventh cousin four times removed is Abraham Lincoln. (Those two seventh cousins should have been mentioned during last Wednesday’s funeral service!)

Winston Churchill is Mr. Bush’s eighth cousin only once removed.

Actress Marilyn Monroe was Mr. Bush’s ninth cousin twice removed.

James Danforth Quayle was actually President Bush’s tenth cousin once removed (any questions?).

Finally, President Gerald R. Ford was Mr. GWH Bush’s eleventh cousin once removed.

(Note: The above information comes from William D. Gregorio’s Complete Book of Presidents which drew its information from the New England Historic Genealogical Society of Boston, Massachusetts.)

Since we’ve all been virtually inundated with President Bush’s good intentions, achievements, kindnesses, gentlemanliness, courage, and conscientiousness, all more than appropriate, I think I’ve finally identified the flaw in his nature that made him a one term president.

His flaw was his inbred but badly managed competitiveness. To a high degree, he inherited this competitiveness from his parents and maternal grandparents.

His mother Dorothy Bush was always competitive. As a teenager, she was runner-up for the national girls’ amateur tennis championship. Additionally, she was a star in baseball, basketball, as well as in tennis. She promised a $5 prize to her first son to defeat her in a tennis match. Her 16-year-old son George was the one who collected the prize.  Dorothy Bush was so competitive that she smacked a home run in a family softball game just before leaving for the hospital to give birth to her first son Prescott, Jr. (Now that’s serious competitiveness if you ask me!)   

Competitiveness at its best can be both inspiring and profitable. However, like every other positive human trait, it can be deadly if misapplied.

When young George moved from his eastern political background to Texas, he had to forgo any sympathy he had for blacks despite his parental training in order to be successful. Hence, in 1964, as he campaigned against liberal Democratic Senator Ralph Yarborough, he had to oppose, as did the GOP nominee Barry M. Goldwater, the Civil Rights Act, despite his father’s sponsorship of the United Negro College Fund. He lost anyway. In 1968, there was enough liberalism throughout Houston to justify his support for the Fair Housing Act sponsored by LBJ which prohibited discrimination in selling or renting to black Vietnam veterans. In fact, young Bush persuaded an initial hostile audience of the necessity that he support such a measure. He later said that up until his election as president, it was the most gratifying experience of his political life.

With all his successes as Ambassador to the United Nations, chairman of the Republican National Committee, America’s liaison to China, and Director of the CIA, Bush turned out to be most vulnerable when he was personally running for office.

In 1980, he nearly destroyed his chance to be Ronald Reagan’s running mate when he labeled Supply Side Economics “Voodoo Economics.” Throughout Bush’s Vice Presidency, many conservatives were dubious about whether they could trust George Bush with “Reaganomics” once the old cowboy rode off into the sunset!

I’m convinced that the fact that Dan Quayle was his tenth cousin once removed had nothing to do with his choice as George Bush’s running mate. For eight years, Mr. Bush was constantly compared and contrasted with Ronald Reagan. If he had selected Robert Dole or even his wife Elizabeth Dole as his running mate, he would have continued to be haunted by speculation that someone prominent and powerful was waiting in the wings to undo him. Dan Quayle would be no political competition.

Mr. Bush often identified politics as the “dirty little price” one had to pay in order to be elected president. Hence he paid it.

His campaign against Michael Dukakis had nothing to do with the specifics of presidential or executive administration. The cleanliness of Boston Harbor was both a state and federal problem. Whether or not everyone should be compelled to salute the flag was only an issue because Governor Dukakis had sustained the individual right on religious grounds to refrain from saluting the flag. As for the issue of crime, President Reagan as Governor of California had a program similar to the program in Massachusetts. Thus, the only factor that divided the two furlough programs was the act of a black prisoner named Willie Horton whose individual moral corruption rather than racial depravity was the cause of his crimes.

Ultimately, his biggest competitive mistake made him a one term president. “Read my lips. No new taxes!” George Bush had to know better than to make such a promise. No responsible and hopefully effective president or executive throws away such a presidential option. Ultimately, Pat Buchanan made President Bush pay for his competitive carelessness.

I admired and even enjoyed hearing and considering President Bush’s ideas and activities during his presidency, but for me there was always the feeling that somehow President George Herbert Walker Bush was crucially more politically expedient than he was substantively wise in comparison to some presidents I can name.

The praise, much of which he richly deserves, is what has brought forth in my mind the conclusion I share with you this week. How could such a knowledgeable, intelligent, well-intentioned and purely decent president have avoided being re-elected? Of course, he had opposition, but it was mostly passionless and based on socio/ideological grounds. There must be, after all, a flaw. As I see it,  mismanagement of his competitive instinct was that fatal political flaw!

What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY