W and WW

George W. Bush likes to consider himself a transformational leader and president. In his words, he does not play "small ball." His supporters like to compare him to Reagan and Truman with the implicit premise that history will also treat him kindly after a rough spell in the polls. In an article on transformational leadership in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, I suvey 20th century presidents and find that Bush is not like Reagan or Truman, but bears an uncanny resemblence to Woodrow Wilson. Both are highly religious and moralistic. Both came to power as minority presidents focused on domestic politics. Both responded to an international crisis with a a bold policy, and both defined a vision that failed to balance ideals with national capacities. Their rhetoric about democracy is quite similar, though Wilson was interested in international institutions while Bush is not. But perhaps most important, both were poor managers, failing to organize diverse information flows in their administrations, and were resistant to new ideas. Persistance can be an admirable quality in a leader, but not if it means resistance to course corrections. Then it becomes blind stubborness. As Robert Lansing, Wilson's secretary of state noted in 1917, "even established facts were ignored if they did not fit in with his intiutitive sense, his semi-devine power to select the right." Sound familiar? And, of course, Wilson failed as a transformational leader as the country rejected his policies over the next two decades. Bush's case is still open, but he is running against the odds.