Why did George Bush lose the presidency in 1992, given that he was vastly experienced in foreign policy-making and had already "won" the Cold War and the Gulf War?

Authors Avatar

Why did George Bush lose the presidency in 1992, given that he was vastly experienced in foreign policy-making and had already “won” the Cold War and the Gulf War?

George Herbert Walker Bush – the foreign policy genius with experience as an ambassador to the United Nations, then as United States envoy to China, and if that was not enough as director of the CIA. Next, when he ran for president in 1988 and won, Bush’s principal focus became foreign affairs. With all the experience he has had, why not? However, what President Bush did not expect was the constant change that would take place during his presidency: from Panama to the end of the Cold War to the win in the Gulf War. Looking at the four successful years of President Bush’s foreign affairs, the math just does not add up when it comes to his loss in 1992. What exactly happened to his popularity or rather were his policies actually successful enough for a re-election?

One of the basic arguments throughout George Bush’s presidency was that the United States foreign policy needed a modification after the Reagan years. It mostly needed focus. However, George Bush did not seem to be the kind of president who could do it, although he had enough experience dealing with international issues. President Bush stressed stability and prudence when it came to foreign policy throughout his campaign in 1988. It even could have applied to all of his decisions, not just on foreign policy. He was very cautious and maybe with a lack of imagination, when it came to change. He also had a team that consisted of people with the same kind of views. James Baker, the Secretary of State, Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor, and Dick Cheney, the Secretary of Defence, were all representatives of views of suspicion of the Soviets and vigilance towards transformations. The foreign policy was already ruined, so maybe Bush’s approach was not so bad after all. “The American president was a bystander observing as the train sped down the tracks toward who knew what destination.”

When it came to the relationship of the United States and China, George Bush was the one to contact. Being the ambassador to China, the President was hoping for a good bond. However, all this was threatened when in April of 1989 Chinese students rallied on the streets for “an open government, an end to the privileges enjoyed by the elite, and democracy.” The riots and protests got out of control. With over a million activists in the Tiananmen Square, the military, approved by the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, moved in with tanks to disintegrate the embarrassing loss of control. The whole world was shocked along with President Bush, who made a stand against unnecessary violence against student protestors. Right away, military deals, normal relations, and discussions between both countries’ officials were over. Although it seemed as if Bush’s decision was quick and definite, later controversies didn’t prove so when he let the Chinese government loose and lifted a ban on loans, vetoed a bill to protect Chinese students, and other formalities that let the Chinese government back in the game. Bush wanted to keep his relationship with the Chinese as a good one, no matter what was actually going on in the country. However, an argument can come up. Do the states actually have responsibility beyond their own national security? When human rights are on the plate, it is difficult to ignore the situation, but unless the government has a personal agenda, it should not bother.

Join now!

In another state, Nicaragua, problems were forming. With Bush’s support of the Contras, election was coming up soon. Although something astonishing happened, and the power changed hands peacefully in Latin America, “the American contribution to these unanticipated developments had been to keep the Contras supplied in Honduras, which had almost wrecked the peace process and endangered the elections.” America did not seem to realize that something like that does not happen often enough and jeopardizing that country was damaging.

Throughout 1989, Eastern Europe went through a transformation that no one could believe. People did not think that this would happen in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay