The perils of great expectations
GEORGE W. BUSH has built his political career on three assets: a famous name, a formidable fund-raising network, and the habitual tendency of his opponents to underestimate him.
Nowhere has this last asset benefited him more than in his debates against his major opponents: Ann Richards in the 1994 Texas governor's race and Al Gore in the presidential campaign of 2000. Because he has never excelled at formal public speaking (in contrast to spontaneous banter, at which he has few equals), Bush faced each opponent with the advantage of low expectations -- and proceeded to exceed them.
But as the president prepares for the final debates of his political career, he finds himself in a new situation. As the incumbent president, he will take the stage starting Sept. 30 against John Kerry bearing the unfamiliar burden of high expectations.
I was a questioner in the Richards-Bush debate, and I assumed the saucy Richards would demolish him. So, apparently, did Richards. Bush aides later told the story that in a backstage encounter prior to the debate, she had said to him, "Are you ready for this, boy?"
Richards opened with a nonpolitical statement about a tropical storm that had caused devastating flooding in Houston and praised rescue workers. When Bush's turn came, he said, "Well spoken, governor." It was spontaneous and genuine and indicated a level of confidence that belied the Democrats' line that he was just a failed businessman running on his daddy's name.
Later, another panelist brought up Bush's National Guard service: Had he wrangled a cushy assignment to avoid going to Vietnam? Bush answered directly: He had flown jets; his life had been at risk. Bush again bested expectations and won the debate. Low expectations played a central role in Bush's debates against Al Gore. His intellectual capabilities had been questioned during the campaign. Bush had been unable to name foreign leaders when questioned by a reporter; his mediocre grades at Yale had been leaked to the media; his occasional mangling of the language had raised questions about whether he had dyslexia. Thus few expected Bush to hold his own against Gore, who was considered an accomplished debater.
But Bush developed a new style that emphasized one of his strongest qualities: discipline. He stayed relentlessly on message whether he was under attack or doing the attacking. His performance was not inspired -- dogged is closer to the mark -- but it didn't have to be. Like Ann Richards, Gore kept waiting for the gaffe that never came, and it seemed to rattle him, as he tried out different personas in each of the three debates. The issue of Bush's inferior intellect faded into the background for the rest of the campaign.
How will Bush perform when expectations are high, as cannot be otherwise for an incumbent president? There is a precedent: his 1998 campaign for reelection as governor, when he debated Democratic challenger Garry Mauro. Bush had not wanted to debate Mauro, who held a minor elected post as steward of the state's public lands and had no chance to win the election. But Bush was already the Republican frontrunner for president and his camp wanted to show GOP voters that he could appeal across party lines to Hispanic voters. So Bush agreed to a debate in El Paso, a border city at the western tip of Texas. The sole questioner was from a local TV station, and many of the questions involved local issues. The debate generated little interest, even among the political crowd.
I watched it from home on an Austin public television station, and I hardly recognized the George W. Bush who showed up. His body language and facial expressions conveyed how little he wanted to be there. His contempt for Mauro went unconcealed. His answers were often testy, prickly, even imperious. After Mauro said that he would intervene with the board that oversees state environmental regulation to block a proposed waste dump in the desert east of El Paso, Bush harrumphed, "That would be an ex parte communication." That kind of answer doesn't connect with viewers at all; it is the language and the mindset of the political insider. Not that it mattered. I doubt that anyone outside of El Paso was watching.
The nation got a glimpse of the same testy Bush earlier this year, in a televised press conference and in an interview with Tim Russert. Bush's debating history suggests that he prefers being the challenger rather than the incumbent, playing the attacker rather than the defender, having the advantage of low expectations rather than the burden of high expectations. He may need all the discipline he exhibited against Gore in 2000 to avoid a repeat of 1998.
Paul Burka is executive editor of Texas Monthly magazine.
