The last two years of eight-year presidencies are historically difficult, particularly after a loss in the final midterm elections. Eisenhower in 1959-60 assumed a more aggressive conservative posture by firing off multiple vetoes of excessive spending legislation. During the Iran-contra scandal, Ronald Reagan in 1987-88 was steadfast in pursuing Cold War victory. But the way George W. Bush handled Rumsfeld was not a good sign for his concluding years as president. ~Robert Novak

My goodness, as the outgoing Secretary of Defense might have said in happier days, but some people have short memories.  I remember the firing of Donald Regan in 1987, and I was all of eight years old at the time–Novak doesn’t even mention it as a possible comparison.  (This may tell you something about how obsessive political junkies are born–we were exposed to the national news far too early!)  Not really understanding the significance of what Iran-Contra was at the time (from that time I have only spotty recollections of seeing Ollie North besieged by reporters in what must have been mid-December 1987 telling them it was time to celebrate Christmas–good one, Ollie), I remembered the incident because of the amusing similarity of the names of the President and the Chief of Staff and the fact that the firing was considered to be Something Important on the television news.  Only years later did I hear about Regan’s bitterness of how he was treated and only later did I probably fully understand why he had been forced out. 

Like Rumsfeld, he had been a fixture of the Reagan Administration, and like Rumsfeld he was chosen as the sacrificial offering to the press and the public and there were a lot of bitter feelings about the firing afterwards (Regan himself felt deeply betrayed by someone he considered a close friend).  Unlike Rumsfeld, he probably had somewhat less responsibility for the scandalous policy for which he was made to take the fall than Rumsfeld.  Also unlike Rumsfeld, Regan was not a colossal screw-up at the job from which he was being fired; if anything, he had to go because he had become too good at the job he was in and was held to be the chief one responsible for the scandal.  (In one of the absurdities of modern American life, James Baker seems to be always present but just lurking out of view in both stories!)  The main difference between them is arguably the timing, but Iran-Contra only began to fully bloom as a public scandal after the midterm defeats in ’86.  In that sense, Reagan chucked Regan out fairly quickly (in less than a year after the scandal had become public knowledge), while Bush has maintained surprisingly steadfast loyalty to a Defense Secretary for a very long time when he should have been sent packing years ago for scandalous failures that have been only too well publicised. 

When President Reagan dropped Regan, it had all the markings of scapegoating someone, and Reagan really handled the firing of Regan no better–in terms of personal loyalty–than Bush handled Rumsfeld’s departure.  Really, comparing the two, we see that Reagan drop-kicked Regan almost immediately, while Bush actually maintained personal loyalty to Rumsfeld for a lot longer than was wise in political or policy terms.  This is not proof of Reagan’s perfidy and Bush’s virtue (far from it!)–it is a sign that Reagan was actually a far more competent political operator and leader than Bush ever will be, because Reagan understood that personnel changes cannot be considered in terms of personal relationships.  Government is not, or should not be, an old boys’ club, and this is something that has been lost on Mr. Bush since the beginning. 

It has been the singular lack of professionalism that has dogged the current administration for years.  The administration has been hampered by the reliance of everyone in the administration on a sort of court-style government in which ties to the master override all other considerations and offering unwelcome advice brings professional and political retribution.   It is probably a measure of how much respect and deference Bush has lost among a lot of Republicans that they are now pretending, with Novak serving as the voice of their frustrations, that his treatment of Rumsfeld is so much worse than the actions of past Republican Presidents who found themselves in a political tight spot and in need of someone to throw to the wolves.  In one sense, the firing of Rumsfeld was worse because it was delayed for so long.  Using the Regan firing as an example, Bush should have replaced Rumsfeld in 2004 and insulated his policy from the unending criticism of Rumsfeld that helped to destroy public and international confidence in the war effort. 

In perfect autocratic fashion, Bush tosses dissenters overboard all the time, but he will usually go to the wall for his yes-men.  He relented with Harriet Miers only because of a massive revolt in the ranks–he would have been perfectly content to go down to humiliating defeat with his absurd Court nominee, because she was a close friend and confidante.  In the end, however, the yes-men are also expendable.  This habit of cultivating yes-men rather than competent advisors and policymakers is one of the key reasons why Mr. Bush will be remembered as one of the great failures in the history of the Presidency and President Reagan will be remembered well (perhaps a little too well) as one of the most successful Presidents of all.