Top Down, Bottom Up

Fighting for the Reagan mantle

The battle for “Reagan’s mantle” continues in the context of the Republican presidential primaries. Who, it is asked, is the rightful heir of Reagan? Who best embodies his principles, policies and leadership skills? While it is interesting to play debating games about who best represents Reaganesque policies, most of the discussions completely miss a very important component of what made Reagan, Reagan.

Politics demands an ability to distinguish between things. Indeed, most of what we recognize as politics today consists of a series of “this, not that” statements. As people go through their political lives seeking to distinguish things from other things, they tend to do so in one of two ways: They are either “Top Down” people or “Bottom Up” people.

Top Down people start thinking about things by understanding what the categories of things are, and how they fit together. They build – or adopt – a framework of thinking about political things, and within this framework they evaluate particular issues and details. They understand the particulars within the context of the intellectual framework they have created. They tend to think in deductive terms.

Bottom Up people starting thinking about political things by evaluating specific issues that face them, and forming opinions on the best way to handle each issue. They tend to be more inductive in their political reasoning. They may or more not begin to see the specific issues coalesce into categories or frameworks of ideas and approach.

Bottom Up people tend to think of themselves as “free thinkers” and “moderates,” and look at Top Down people and see rigid ideologues who have to fit every issue into a pigeon hole. Top Down people see themselves as principled and consistent, and look the other way and see inconsistent tinkerers and dilettantes.

Ronald Reagan was the consummate Top Down thinker. From his famous “A Time for Choosing” speech in 1964 through the end of his Presidency, virtually all of his political actions and approaches were evaluated and executed within the context of his pre-existing framework of ideas and philosophies. Half of what Reagan is remembered to be is the nature of that framework – it essentially defines the modern conservative movement – but the other half is the fact that the framework was always his starting point. Reagan never evaluated new ideas as if they were unique issues for which brand new solutions were required. He quickly placed them in his philosophical framework, which permitted him to be very consistent and very fast in developing solutions.

As we look at the Republican candidates that remain as serious candidates, we must ask ourselves not only what ideas they express, but the manner in which they apply those ideas to the events they will face as President.

I suspect that one of the major reasons I am so deeply suspicious of John McCain is that he is clearly a Bottom Up kind of guy. I am a Top Down kind of guy. (Only a Top Down thinker would start by categorizing people into categories!) So despite the fact that Senator McCain clearly has conservative instincts and generally conservative outlook, he approaches every issue as its own creature, and not necessarily in the context of a larger philosophy. This creates an inconsistency and unpredictability that drives Top Down people like me absolutely nuts. It looks to us as if he is all over the board. When John McCain is lauded as a “maverick” by the media, it is exactly the Bottom Up quality they are appreciating.

Mike Huckabee is also emerging as a Bottom Up fellow. He is attached to a sense of shared identity, but not so much a political philosophical framework. He represents compassionate conservatism, which the experience of recent years has shown to be a philosophy in which answers to political questions are suggested by a sense of shared moral imperative. But that moral sense does not provide consistent direction. This is not to say that a Top Down approach is not possible with compassionate conservatism. I think it would be hard, but certainly possible. But not for Huckabee, who seems to evaluate one question at a time and gets very different sorts of answers depending on how he understands the moral requirements.

I think that Rudy Giuliani is very much a Bottom Up man. He is a man of action, but it is action solving one problem at a time, with very little in the way of a consistent framework of ideas gluing it all together.

Romney seems to have the clearest sense of Top Down thinking, which is probably why he resonates with me. Oddly enough, he starts with perhaps the least consistent conservative philosophy. He seems to have adopted one, whether for real or for pretend time will tell. But the details he speaks about all have a clear and sensible home in the larger philosophical framework.

This is not to suggest that Romney is the New Reagan. Just that he shares an approach to political thinking that seems consistent with one of Reagan’s strengths. Romney and McCain seem to have ripped the Reagan Mantle in two and each share a piece, which is why conservatives find it hard to choose between them.

My bias (surprise) is that Top Down thinkers are more effective at large-scale governing. Jimmy Carter may have been the worst ever example of what Bottom Up thinking in the White House will produce. I also think this explains some of the Bush Administration difficulties.

It’s time for change all right. Let’s get us a Top Down thinker in the White House again.

Archives of "The View from the Ground"

Send an e mail to Patrick J. Shanahan

Visit his website at: