Mark Updegrove

[00:00:00] Matt Blumberg: Welcome to Country Over Self, Defining Moments in American History. Each episode we welcome a notable historian to tell us the story of a president and a choice that president made to strengthen the country without regard to the impact of that decision on himself, his power, or his party.

Welcome to Country Over Self, Defining Moments in American History. I'm your host, Matt Blumberg, and I'm here today with Mark Updegrove. Mark is the president and CEO of the LBJ Foundation and serves as a presidential historian for ABC News. but we're not talking about LBJ today. Mark is the author of, five books on the presidency, including, The Last Republicans Inside the Extraordinary Relationship Between George H.

W. Bush and George W. Bush. Mark, welcome to Country Over Self. 

[00:01:01] Mark Updegrove: Thanks so much, Matt. Delighted to be here. 

[00:01:04] Matt Blumberg: Great. So today, we want to talk about our 41st president, George H. W. Bush, senior, Bush 41, poppy, depending on who you, who you talk to. Bush had one of, I think one of the most impressive kind of pre presidential resumes in our country's history.

A member of Congress, chair of the RNC, ambassador to the UN, envoy to China, director of the CIA, two term vice president. before winning the presidency in 1988, Bush is one of 15 vice presidents who has gone on, to become president and is one of only four who won that election as a sitting, vice president Adams, Jefferson, and Van Buren as the other three, noting that very long gap between Van Buren and Bush.

I would say Bush's term in office is probably best remembered for shepherding us through the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union. his post presidency, I think was probably best defined by two things. One was the extraordinary relationship he developed with Bill Clinton, the person who defeated him, for reelection.

and that, he was one of only two presidents to see his son win the presidency. so I've been excited, to talk about Bush 41 on this show, and, I'm really happy you're here. And there are sort of two defining moments that I want to talk about, but the one that I really want to, go deep on, is, something with the very dry name of the omnibus budget.

Reconciliation Act of 1990. So, Mark, let's start with that. What's the, what's sort of the decision point or defining moment that, we're talking about today? 

[00:02:44] Mark Updegrove: Well, you have to go back to the campaign of 1988, as you said, that there was no incumbent vice president who had risen to the presidency since Martin Van Buren had succeeded, Andrew Jackson.

in the 1800s. there, there were a lot of eyes on, the 1988 race. of course, Bush had been, as you suggested, Matt, the two term vice president for Ronald Reagan. But there was a lot of wariness about Bush in the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan was a bona fide conservative. He was trusted by the conservatives.

The evangelistic community, which helped get him into the, into office and the various constituents around conservatism really lined up behind Reagan's candidacy, but they were wary of, Bush 41 as a sort of closet moderate and not even so closeted, sort of a Rockefeller, rather Republican.

and there was a great deal of pressure on him not to raise taxes. There was a movement at the time led by a gentleman named Grover Norquist not to raise taxes. And Bush said at the convention patently in order to engender the trust of Norquist and that very powerful constituency and other powerful conservatives, read my lips no new taxes.

He said, I'll be pushed and I'll be pushed and I'll be pushed, but I will not yield. And that line stuck, read my lips, no new taxes. But as you suggested, there was a budget struggle in 1990. The, House was controlled by, by Democrats and, in order to get the deal through, Bush had to raise taxes.

It wasn't a major tax increase. In fact, Reagan had, approved tax increases during the course of his administration, which were much greater than the tax increase that Bush allowed in order to get the budget through. But it violated that very public promise that he would not raise taxes and it proved very controversial those wary conservatives sort of Called him out on this and it hurt his candidacy tremendously So we go back to 1990 he yields on this And I think that that, domestic, compromise in order to get the budget through, which ended up being incredibly valuable to growing the economy during the course of the Clinton administration, probably made the difference for Bush in, in, earning him.

Another term as, president. 

[00:05:29] Matt Blumberg: I had to remind myself of some of the details on this, in, preparation for this conversation. And one of the things that, that I had, that I had forgotten was, obviously he knew this was gonna be an issue and, I can't remember whether it was in, in your book or in John Meachem's book, that, he, he, said to speaker of the house, Tom Foley at the time, Lord, I've got two years to recover from this grief. The main thing is to get the job done. and then I think at the announcement, he said, sometimes you don't get it just the way you want. but it's time we put the interest of the United States of America first and get this deficit under control.

And, the thing that I found so interesting was that the first pass at the bill. Raised some peripheral taxes, but no income taxes. and he got so much grief from the Republican caucus. Some of whom had been in the room negotiating with him. and he got so much grief from them for pursuing deficit reduction, which was a, which was Republican orthodoxy at the time as well, that they bolted on the bill and he didn't have enough support to do it without, raising income taxes slightly.

[00:06:45] Mark Updegrove: That's absolutely right. And, but it bears mentioning here, this is really key. that he loses the presidency to Bill Clinton in 1992, and Clinton goes on to oversee during his two terms in office the most prosperous U. S. economy in the history of our nation, and ends up delivering, four consecutive budget surpluses at the end of his term and leaves with an approval rating of 64 percent despite the scandals in his administration.

That's all because the economy was so solid at that time and so much of that has to do with the compromise that Bush made in 1990s. So what ended up being enormously controversial and may have cost, or at least in part cost, Bush, the presidency ends up being enormously beneficial for the country that George H.

W. Bush so loved. and, and he ends up getting the profile and courage award from the JFK foundation. pretty prestigious stuff because of the political courage it took to make that deal. For the good of the nation, as you suggested. 

[00:08:03] Matt Blumberg: And it's interesting to have this conversation, with the backdrop of today's political environment where, sort of any compromise with the other side is, vilified by the extremes of both sides.

This is a long time ago, and, in the Reagan administration, there was plenty of compromise. do you feel like the seeds of today's environment were, sort of being planted? at this moment in 1990, 1992, or, what, was going on? Why was it that deficit reduction, and entitlement reduction with what proved to be a de minimis increase in taxes was problematic for, Bush with his own party?

[00:08:50] Mark Updegrove: I think you, see, increased. Conservatism, a different strain of conservatism beginning to emerge from the Republican Party. This again, this refusal to pay any more taxes. that's a different sort of strain of conservatism. I mean, Reagan was against big government, but, you saw during the course of his administration, actually government expanded.

And to your point, Reagan made a lot of compromises with the other side. That's how you govern. half a loaf is better than none, right? you meet in the middle, depending on how you negotiate. It depends on where in the middle. But, that's inherent in our democratic system. You have different people with different views who go to Washington to represent their constituents and you negotiate.

You try to figure out the best policy for all concerned. That's an inherent part of things. Things start changing in the 1980s and I think you, I mean, I'm not sure I would point to the budget, compromise that Bush makes in 1990. I think that's a reflection of this, but I think you probably have to go back to the changing media landscape, and Reagan striking down the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and overnight you have talk radio become the number one form of radio, and this conservative, talk radio in particular with Rush Limbaugh and other far right figures,and then you get, I think, Fox News and, this sort of. Extremism, and, Bush is running into that to a large extent in 1990 and, and again, I think it proves his undoing.

He's challenged by Ross Perot, a third party candidate who ends up getting 19 percent of the vote in 1992. Clinton does not get a majority. But he earns the presidency because the conservative and Republican vote more broadly is split between these two candidates. Many Republicans, as I mentioned, simply, they didn't trust Bush before, and they certainly don't trust him after he violates that pledge.

[00:11:03] Matt Blumberg: Yeah, the Perot part of the campaign is interesting because he didn't win any states, but he caused Clinton to win a bunch of states. certainly in my lifetime, your lifetime, it's the most significant third party run, that, that we've seen in the most impactful one. do you feel like It was that it was the compilation of lots of things that led Perot to jump in, or were there some flashpoints in it?

Was this particular thing one of the flashpoints? I think this is 

[00:11:38] Mark Updegrove: probably 

[00:11:39] Matt Blumberg: one of the 

[00:11:39] Mark Updegrove: flashpoints, but what Perot's candidacy shows is that populist candidates can catch fire. And he did capture the imagination of the American people. The American people thought he was one of them in a way. and then he would advocate for them in a way that, that George Herbert Walker would not.

He, as you may recall, he got into the race and then he got out of the race and then he stepped back into the race and there was this will he or won't he drama behind, Ross Perot's candidacy. He was on Larry King live and he said, I really don't want to run, but the people want me to run. They can sign a petition.

And, there was this great grassroots movement behind. Ross Perot, because again, I think there were a lot of alienated conservatives who were looking for a candidate that they could get behind. And that's, the reason that Ross Perot caught fire. and the imagination of so many Republicans.

[00:12:35] Matt Blumberg: Yeah. And I mean, it's, sort of interesting to think about the parallels between that and Trump. It certainly starts with, the, billionaire, businessman outsider, and populism and the right. and the distrust of compromise and moderates. 

[00:12:51] Mark Updegrove: And you talked about Bush's record to some degree that, that worked against him.

He looked like, the long time politician and the Bush's as Matt, were devoted to public service and that can be a plus at times, but that can also be a minus because the American people say, look, we're. It's tired of this inside the beltway stuff. We want an outsider to come in and fix it all, and that explains why Ross Perot was so popular in 1992.

It explains the rise of Donald Trump, this outsider, who, doesn't have any military or political experience, but casts this image of somebody who can You know, fix it all because he knows it all, right? and he played that role on television and people thought he could play that role in the white house 

[00:13:46] Matt Blumberg: You talked a little bit about the impact of the decision And, that it, sort of opened the door to, to budget surpluses and incredibly strong economy.

there's certainly other things in the Clinton administration going on, like the rise of the Internet that probably led to strengthen the economy. But that was clearly one of the, one of the things How do you think that decision around the budget compromise, impacted history other than, sort of the economy under Clinton?

Like, have there, has, have there been echoes and reverberations? did it, maybe fuel further distrust of moderates, on the right? 

[00:14:26] Mark Updegrove: I think that's probably right. I mean, it changes history because it really changes the political prospects for George Herbert Walker Bush, right? Bush may well have gotten another term.

That's interesting, Bush did so well on foreign policy, and I think you alluded to, I think, his, the main pillar of his legacy, Matt, which is that the Cold War ended with a whimper and not a bang. you had no shots fired, no tanks in the street, no bloodshed, as the, Cold War wound down and there was no assurance of that.

This is the dominant geopolitical issue for, 40 years in American politics. And the fact that it ended so peacefully with the transition of so many nations toward democratic systems of government is a testament to the sheer competence of George Herbert Walker Bush and the people around him, the very able team around him.

But you, so you get the, Gulf War, which is resolved, expeditiously, and with a, very clear exit strategy, after the Cold War ends peacefully, you get the reunification of Germany, you get the establishment of a new world order. These are major, accomplishments, remarkable accomplishments from a foreign policy standpoint.

But what Bush did not have. is he didn't have a view for what his domestic policy would look like. And I think Americans, at a certain point after the Gulf War, Bush has an approval rating of 89 percent. That's astronomical, right? but he did not tell people what he was going to do in domestic policy, and elections are forward looking.

They don't look backward. We don't give credit. To the president for what he has done. We're looking for what he will do and bush didn't articulate very clearly a domestic policy he That would resonate at kitchen tables throughout the united states In fact on the contrary bush looked like he was out of touch Had he been a better communicator?

a reagan esque or clintonian kind of communicator he might have articulated to the american people why that tax compromise was beneficial, but he was unable to do that. And, and the combination of all those things meant the defeat of Bush in 1992. I would add, though, Matt, that I think he's probably the most important one term president in the history of our country.

That could change if Kamala Harris prevails in the election early next month, then I think Joe Biden will probably be the most significant one term president, but that's no mean feat. George Herbert Walker Bush had an enormously consequential four years in office despite being defeated at the polls in 92 

[00:17:30] Matt Blumberg: I want to, move and talk a little bit about his legacy and, and I want to start this by, going through a sort of second defining moment, and that moment is, the letter that he left behind, in the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office on Clinton's Inauguration Day.

and I actually want to read. the text the letter and it's short enough because it's one of those things that you know sort of gives me the chills when I read it when I actually went to the clinton library recently and I couldn't find it there I assumed it would be there because it's such a I feel like it's such an important document But the letter reads dear bill when I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago, and I know you'll feel that too I wish you great happiness here.

I never felt the loneliness some presidents have described. There will be very tough times made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair. I'm not a very good one to give advice, but just don't let the critics discourage you or push you off course. You will be our president when you read this note.

I wish you well. I wish your family well. Your success is now our country's success. I'm rooting hard for you. Good luck, George. And what's interesting to me when I read this letter is Bush wasn't the first president to leave his successor a note, and he's not going to be the last. But the note stands out to me as a defining moment in American history, especially as we talk today so much about the peaceful transfer of power, because Bush actually lost the election to him.

And it was such an incredibly gracious. Note, and I'm rooting hard for you and your success is now our country's success. so my question to you, as someone who's actually spent time with, Bush 41 and the Bush family, how did he think about his legacy and his reputation and why do you think this letter was important for him?

[00:19:25] Mark Updegrove: Well, let me answer your question, but let me give you a little context. On this letter. First of all, I think your viewers will forgive me for one second. I have that letter here. I think this is here. Let me see. I have that letter here. And the reason is, that I asked Bill Clinton about this, and I asked Bill Clinton, in a, in an interview with ABC to read this letter.

We were doing an interview with him, anticipating the death of George Herbert Walker Bush, who had then become, as you suggested earlier, a, dear friend of Bill Clinton's. And he read it, and it was really moving, and I'll tell you why. That letter is not in the Clinton library. It's because it's in the possession of Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton likes to take that letter out and read it every now and again. And it was profoundly moving to him to get this letter from his predecessor. And you're right. Ronald Reagan had established the tradition of leaving a letter for his successor. But in Reagan's case, it was really easy to do that, right?

He's being succeeded by his vice president and his heir apparent. so that's a slightly different proposition than leaving a letter for the person who has defeated you in a campaign where the, the elbows got pretty sharp at times, right? So it's a remarkable thing and it is a testament to George Herbert Walker Bush, never failed to put country above party and above self.

That is really, an implicit American value. and one that we hope all presidents abide by. That, to your point, is a manifestation of that. Not only of, I think, what democratic values are, but really the ethos of the Bush family. thinking about the other guy, thinking about the greater good.

That's part of the, Bush family ethos. it, George, Bush would talk about his mother, lecturing him, I don't want to know how you did on the baseball team, George, how did the, team do? So he was really taught to think about the greater good. He had high ambitions himself.

and there are times during the course of his political career where He lets his ambitions exceed his grace, but not for very long. And this is a great example of Bush doing the right thing. In terms of his legacy, he didn't talk about that. Bush would talk at the talk about the, his legacy as the L word.

and, it's very telling that he didn't write a memoir, those self serving, memoirs that presidents churn out, inevitably. He did have All the Best, which is a book of letters that he had written during the course of his life, which are very revealing of his character. He wrote a book with Brent Scowcroft about the foreign policy crises that they faced during the course of their administration.

But he didn't write a memoir because that's just, that was not Bush's style. he was taught really not to think about himself in grandiose terms. So it's characteristic for him not to think about legacy. That said, Matt, I used to talk to him about his legacy frequently, and I would say you're one of the few presidents who will ever see in his lifetime a pretty clear indication of how history will reflect on your administration and your life, because you're There was sort of a period at the end of the sentences that had began during the course of the administration.

There was a finality to the things that, that he was dealing with. We talked about the budget compromise, which again paved the way for the prosperity of the Clinton years in large measure. But also a, resolute end to the Gulf War, an end to the, the, Cold War. Again, I mentioned earlier the reunification of journey.

There were no messy, loose ends. And he could hand the presidency over to Clinton, who would have a, a fresh start, right? There was a, clean break. So I think that's, part of the legacy of, Bush. And I was really pleased to see, somebody who had been defeated for reelection, see that his administration was being reflected, very well in American history at the end of his life.

[00:24:04] Matt Blumberg: Yeah, I think very much And, I think, it grows over time still. 

[00:24:08] Mark Updegrove: Yeah, I agree. But partly because of the character of Bush, not only because of the accomplishments of the administration, which are formidable, they really are, particularly that cold war thing, which has so much to do with Bush's humility.

Bush refused to spike the football or beat his chest about the triumph of American ideals over totalitarianism. He didn't want to compromise the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev at a time when they really needed to negotiate certain things in order to ensure that there was greater Democracy, on the, on the eastern part of the world, right?

With the eastern bloc nations and in Russia. So that becomes vitally important at that moment. So that humility, which is so endemic to his character, becomes an important part of his legacy. 

[00:24:53] Matt Blumberg: Yeah. Alright, so I want to close with, a few rapid fire questions. And, the first two let's limit ourselves to, non living presidents, or former presidents.

So the first question is, we obviously, we talked about Bush 41 today. If you had to pick another example, since you've written books about lots of presidents, if you had to pick another example of a president choosing country over self, what would it be? 

[00:25:22] Mark Updegrove: Yeah, there's so many. And we've been, we have had the, this is rapid fire.

So let me say, I'll answer quickly. I think you gotta give LBJ enormous credit, for pushing through the civil rights act in 1964, after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy had proposed the civil rights act, hadn't put a lot of legislative might behind it. And LBJ comes into the presidency accidentally.

and immediately makes it a priority and pushes it into law, and his, aides say, Mr. President, wait till you earn the presidency in your own right, and then push it into law. OBJ famously says, what the hell's the presidency for? 

[00:26:06] Matt Blumberg: that is in fact, the theme of the episode I recorded with Julian Zelzer, so that's perfect.

So question two, let's ask the opposite. what's the best example or most prominent example in your mind of a president doing self over country? 

[00:26:22] Mark Updegrove: there aren't that many that, that's the good, that's the good news. I gotta say that the most egregious example of that is Donald Trump over and over during the course of his administration, putting himself above, the needs of the country and, any other consideration.

there are numerous examples. I know that we have an election in a couple of weeks and many of your, your listeners and watchers may be casting their vote for Donald Trump, but I see in him a constitutional inability. to think of anything beyond himself. There's a sort of malignant narcissism that I think was, pervaded his first administration.

[00:27:04] Matt Blumberg: Is there one you can, think of that's, further back in the past? 

[00:27:08] Mark Updegrove: the Alien and Sedition Act from, John Adams comes to mind. this is somebody who had a thin skin, much like, like Donald Trump, and put something in place that was draconian to prevent dissent, voices of dissent from playing out.

And thankfully, although we were a fledgling nation, people were, committed. to the democratic values that were espoused by our founders and, John Adams, the first one term president. Albeit one like George H. W. Bush, who had been a vice president and an incumbent vice president and earned the presidency.

He was roundly criticized for it, and it probably, was one of the things that cost him, his second term. And he lost, of course, to our third president, Thomas Jefferson. his Vice president. All

[00:28:00] Matt Blumberg: All right. My third rapid fire question you have answered earlier in the conversation, and that's about Biden and his withdrawal from the race.

And what you said earlier was if he, if, Harris wins that his presidency will be viewed as a very consequential one term, president, what do you think happens to his legacy if Harris loses? 

[00:28:22] Mark Updegrove: it's still significant insofar as he's the most significant legislative president since Lyndon Johnson. The infrastructure stuff in particular is really important.

And this is a guy who understood the legislative process much as Lyndon Johnson did, and was able to get some significant legislation through. at a time, unlike Lyndon Johnson, when partisanship really marks the attitude of, Washington. it is so pervasive and so dominant that it was difficult to manage those legislative feats.

So that's an impressive accomplishment, but really the central pillar of Joe Biden's legacy and the reason he got into the race in the first place. was to fend off what he saw and many saw as an existential threat to democracy from Donald Trump. And he did so by defeating Trump in 2020, returning us to democratic norms and values, and doing things like reviving NATO, which was particularly important in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine.

and I, think part of that legacy is knowing that he wasn't the best standard bearer for the Republican, or for the Democratic Party, excuse me, and I think courageously yielding the, torch and passing it to his vice president Kamala Harris. If she wins, if she staves off this threat once again, I think there is no question in my mind.

That, that Joe Biden will, not only be the most important one term president in the history of our country, but will be more than anyone else, responsible for the preservation and protection of our democracy against this threat. 

[00:30:09] Matt Blumberg: And what do you think happens if it goes the other way? 

[00:30:11] Mark Updegrove: I think it depends largely on the Trump presidency, but we can predict I think based on the rhetoric that we're hearing that we're going to take a very different turn in the United States.

I think you can't blame Joe Biden for his age. You can give him enormous credit again for jumping into the race in 2019 and winning in 2020. But I think his, his place in history is compromised by not knowing earlier that he shouldn't run for a second term and trusting the party to go through a primary process that would yield a more viable candidate than himself.

All right, my 

[00:30:51] Matt Blumberg: for you. Knowing everything you know about our system, our politics, our culture, and more than most, if you could wave a magic wand and make one change to something in our system, regardless of what it requires, constitutional amendment, it's cultural, it doesn't matter, you could wave a magic wand and change one thing to strengthen our system of government, what would it be?

[00:31:18] Mark Updegrove: Well, I alluded to it earlier. I think that the biggest threat to our government is our fragmented media system. And, I mentioned Reagan striking down the fairness doctrine, which kept media outlets in check. And I think it would be something very big around ensuring That purveyors of media, whether it be social media or, mainstream media, whatever it might be, are responsible for content that does not allow for misinformation and disinformation.

I think that is the biggest problem. I would have to look at what the best law might be. The best path to that is, yeah. Right, exactly. Because a lot's changed since the Fairness Doctrine was struck. Yeah, 

[00:32:01] Matt Blumberg: that's right. That's right. It is, When the country can't agree on facts, it's a problem.

[00:32:07] Mark Updegrove: That's exactly right. And that could be the undoing of our democracy. 

[00:32:11] Matt Blumberg: 80 

[00:32:11] Mark Updegrove: percent of. Americans get their news from social media and social media purveyors are not bound to the same rules and regulations as those in the mainstream media. So that would be my, I think my answer. 

[00:32:28] Matt Blumberg: All right, Mark Updegrove, presidential historian, best selling author.

Thank you so much for joining me today on country over self. Thanks so much for having me. Thank you for listening to the country over self podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, please take a minute to give us five stars and leave us a review. If you have an idea for an episode or want to reach Matt directly, please email podcast at country over self.

com.