Doing Well vs. Being Great: Comparing the G.W. Bush and Barack Obama Presidencies Stanley A.

Renshon The City University of New York The measure of every American president is to be found at the intersection of their ambitions, their leadership skills and judgment, and the circumstances they face. And the measure of any presidency comes into sharper relief in comparative perspective. We can learn a great deal by comparing the ambitions, skills, choices and the leadership circumstances of an FDR and a Dwight Eisenhower, or a Jimmy Carter with a Ronald Reagan. We can learn a great deal more when both presidents are two term presidents, when their presidencies are sequential, and when they both faced major crises, and similar choice points in the conduct of wars they fought. We have such a felicitous set of theory building circumstances in the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama. Both faced major economic dislocations, Mr. Bush faced a severe liquidity crisis at the end of his presidency, and Mr. Obama a deep recession at the start of his. Further, both faced major choice points with regard to the wars that they were prosecuting, Mr. Bushs surge in Iraq, and Mr. Obamas surge in Afghanistan. One point of difference between the two presidents is that Mr. Bushs presidency was bracketed by two enormous crises- 9/11 at the start of his first term, and the liquidity crisis and threat of economy meltdown at the end of his second term. Only Franklin Roosevelt faced two such severe crises, the Depression and the attack on Pearl Harbor that led to the onset of World War II. Such crises deprive a president of options; he must respond to such circumstances and the question then becomes: How did the president acquit himself? President Obama faced less dire circumstances that give him greater latitude in his choices about how to use his presidency. Here too, the question is: How did he acquit himself? These circumstances also help bring into sharper focus key aspects of each presidents decision making in the context of dire circumstances. Among the factors that ought to be considered are their goals, their alternatives, and the implications of their choices for their presidential and policy ambitions. We ask: How did each presidents view of his leadership role? And, what were their policy assumptions and calculations of political risk that shaped their responses in the two sets of circumstances? In looking at these two very different presidents

facing similar sets of circumstances, what can we learn of the relative weight of these considerations in presidential decision making more generally? At the same time, a comparative focus helps to highlight the distinctive aspects of George W. Bushs leadership and presidency, which is, of course, part of the focus of this conference.