George W. Bush has steadfastly avoided the political fray since leaving the White House, save for the casual endorsement of Mitt Romney he offered in May through an elevator鈥檚 closing doors.
But the former president has nonetheless advanced a robust policy agenda in the last few years, using his Dallas-based think tank, the Bush Institute, to signal the issues on which he plans to focus his post-presidency.
Far from steering clear of public policy鈥攁s media reports often portray him鈥擝ush has quietly guided the institute to start building upon parts of his presidency that remain hot topics of debate: foreign aid, accountability in education, tax policy and democracy movements.
Bush and his staff are careful to honor post-White House standards of decorum that typically limit how much presidents engage in day-to-day politics鈥攁nd the nonpartisan bent required for the institute鈥檚 tax-exempt status.
But some of the ideas that Bush and the institute are promoting put him at odds with many in the GOP, and especially those who participated in this year鈥檚 acrid Republican presidential primary.
鈥淥ne of the ironies of contemporary politics is that the Republicans are ignoring or rejecting the last Republican president,鈥� said George C. Edwards, an expert on the presidency at Texas A&M University. 鈥淵ou have a president interested in compassionate conservatism, and that鈥檚 not something the Republicans seem to be interested in right now.鈥�
Behind the Scenes
Ex-presidents have long found ways to stay involved in projects and issues important to them, although usually behind the scenes.
One of the iron-clad post-presidential rules has been to give due deference to successors, and most former commanders in chief abide, although Jimmy Carter, for instance, has flouted that edict on occasion.
Only in the past few decades鈥攚ith a number of presidents living for decades after leaving office鈥攄id those substantive policy efforts come more into the public view, experts said.
And Bush, 66, is following the pattern by focusing his impact on certain topics.
鈥淲hen you leave office, you get to slow down and decide where you鈥檙e going to focus your attention,鈥� said Martha Kumar, a presidential scholar at Towson University in Maryland.
It can be somewhat difficult to divine Bush鈥檚 personal policy beliefs from the think tank鈥檚 work鈥攚hich includes everything from position papers to interactive websites to hands-on teaching curricula鈥攇iven that institute staff has a fairly wide berth to pursue research.
Institute officials are also quick to note that Bush has made clear he doesn鈥檛 expect them to defend his legacy.
But the former president has backstopped the institute鈥檚 efforts with his own speeches. And officials point out that the institute鈥檚 principles stem from Bush鈥檚 core beliefs, predating his time in the White House.
The think tank鈥檚 staffers say they want to be part of policy debates but are trying to work on policy proposals they hope endure longer than the latest partisan squabble.
鈥淓ven if there weren鈥檛 an election, we would still be harping on the same issues,鈥� said Jim Glassman, executive director of the institute, part of the presidential center set to open at SMU next spring.
The election year, however, provides an interesting contrast, particularly after the GOP primary candidates bashed some Bush-era initiatives in an effort to out-conservative one another.
The GOP contenders targeted foreign aid, a topic Bush has frequently championed.
Rick Perry proposed setting the foreign aid budget back to zero and then reallocating to countries he deemed worthy. Ron Paul advocated eliminating such spending altogether. And Romney, the all-but-official GOP presidential nominee, said he would also curtail some aid.
No Child Left Behind
Likewise, the contenders slammed the No Child Left Behind education law, one of Bush鈥檚 signature legislative accomplishments, as a failed federal overreach.
And even Romney鈥攚ho hired Rod Paige, Bush鈥檚 education secretary, as an adviser鈥攑roposed scaling back the federal involvement outlined in the law, which aims to require schools to measure progress but has been criticized as making them too concerned with standardized testing.
Bush and his institute staff steer clear of addressing those specific critiques, but they aren鈥檛 shy about defending their work.
Dr. Mark Dybul, a global health fellow, described the importance of foreign aid in promoting national security and economic growth. He said that the aid is a fraction of the federal budget, but that it 鈥渉as a massive impact on how we鈥檙e perceived in the world.鈥�
As if to illustrate the point, Bush and his wife, Laura, recently spent time in Africa to promote the institute鈥檚 cancer-fighting initiative, Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon.
And Kerri Briggs, director of the education initiative, pointed out that the institute has stayed out of the broader No Child Left Behind debate, instead focusing on improving middle schools and principals.
But she added that robust standards for students, teachers and school districts are still top of mind.
鈥淭here are a fair number of people questioning accountability,鈥� Briggs said. 鈥淏ut we think it matters, and we are going to say so.鈥�
Even when there haven鈥檛 been direct conflicts between the Bush Institute鈥檚 aims and the campaign rhetoric, distinctions nonetheless remain.
Bush, touting the institute鈥檚 economic growth initiative, has spoken of the importance of his namesake tax cuts, which are still popular among conservatives. He has, however, framed tax policy as the first step to economic recovery, even ahead of balancing the budget.
That鈥檚 compared to the primaries, where the candidates practically tripped over one another to brag about the federal agencies and other budget items they would cut.
Or take Bush鈥檚 and the institute鈥檚 efforts to promote democracy movements in places like Syria and Egypt. The proposal doesn鈥檛 stray too far from the GOP norm, but the think tank stops its advocacy at providing moral and educational support, leaving up to policymakers the tricky details of how exactly to achieve results.
And moving forward, institute officials said they鈥檙e happy to work within that framework: participating in the overall conversation but not necessarily the daily debate over specific policies.
鈥淚t鈥檚 somewhat liberating,鈥� said Glassman, the institute director. 鈥淲e like to take a longer view.鈥�
At a Glance: Ex-President鈥檚 Focus
The George W. Bush Institute offers perhaps the best insight into the issues on which the former commander in chief plans to focus his post-presidency. The think tank, part of the presidential center set to open at SMU next spring, has several initiatives ongoing, but a few touch on hot topics in this year鈥檚 presidential race.
Global health: Many Republicans favor slashing foreign aid, but the institute is steadfast in focusing on how best to provide assistance to Africa and other locales. The Bushes just returned from a trip to Zambia and Botswana to promote their cancer-fighting initiative, Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon.
Education: Some conservatives have taken to bashing Bush鈥檚 No Child Left Behind education law as a failed federal overreach. The institute has stayed out of that debate, focusing instead on middle schools and principals, but it continues to promote rigorous standards and other accountability measures.
Economic growth: Balancing the federal budget, cutting spending and reducing the national debt have dominated the presidential race. Bush and his institute agree those issues are important, but they鈥檙e promoting tax policy as the key to spurring economic recovery.
Human freedom: Bush and institute officials, along with many other conservatives, support democracy movements in Syria, Egypt and other countries. But the think tank is focused more on moral and educational support, launching an online video archive of interviews with freedom activists. They鈥檙e leaving up to policymakers the challenge of how exactly to engage those countries.
