‘Bush and Clinton’s friendship is a model of gracious decency from which Brexit Britain has much to learn .... ’
THE passing of the first George Bush to win the US presidency has triggered a wave of nostalgia, but this is not so much for the years when he was in the White House as for the graciousness this leader exemplified in his dealings with rivals.
As president, he could look wooden in his public appearances. This patrician figure contrasted sharply with the informality of Bill Clinton, who ousted him from the Oval Office after one term in the 1992 election.
Clinton talked about his underwear choices at an MTV-sponsored Q&A and played the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall talk show.
Mr Bush could point to his roles in ensuring the Cold War had a soft landing and Saddam Hussein was forced out of Kuwait, but Americans embraced the fun-loving Democrat who worked so hard to show he understood the economic frustrations of Middle America.
Yet the post-presidency friendship between Clinton and Bush fascinated people across an increasingly polarised country. It showed that political adversaries did not have to be enemies.
They toured southeast Asia together on an aid mission in response to the 2004 tsunami and their relationship turned from one of respect to genuine friendship. Back home, they bonded over golf and went speedboating, and raised funds to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bush laid the foundation for this rapport in one of his last acts in the White House, when he left a beautiful letter for his successor.
“I wish you great happiness here,” he told him. “I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described... I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course...
“Your success now is our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you.”
Clinton responded to Bush’s death, saying he was “profoundly grateful for every minute” they spent together, saying he would always hold their friendship “as one of my life’s greatest gifts”.
The affection is striking because it reminds us that people on different sides of a political debate can see one another as fellow agents in pursuit of a common good. Contrast that with the toxicity today demonstrated in online battles when people with different convictions are castigated as traitors and villains.
It is quite hard to imagine President Trump and Barack Obama enjoying a post-presidential friendship, especially when the former mercilessly uses Twitter to attack critics his own party; he remorselessly cast Hillary Clinton as “crooked” during the election, so it is unlikely he and she will enjoy martinis anytime soon.
In contrast, in June, Bush took to Twitter to show him once again hanging out with his “great friend” who ended his presidency – and wearing Bill Clinton socks to mark the occasion.
The pair had each faced health challenges, with George W Bush joking in 2005 that after Clinton underwent surgery he “woke up surrounded by his loved ones: Hillary, Chelsea... and my dad”.
Their concern for one another – and their unique ability to relate to the challenges of the office and the life that follows – can only have cemented a bond that transcended politics.
In today’s febrile and factional climate in Westminster politicians rarely publicise cross-party friendships. A Conservative special adviser who starts dating a leading member of Momentum might well start to worry about his or her career prospects, while at Labour conferences it is common to see activists wearing T-shirts carrying the boast “never kissed a Tory”.
The divisions are bitter because disagreements between parties are no longer presented as differences over policy but clashes of core values.
But in the corridors of Westminster and the Assembly the reality is that flesh and blood individuals are trying to get through each day, facing the full gamut of pressures and dilemmas that confront us all.
For many if not the majority of MPs in the Commons this week the biggest issue in their lives is probably not Brexit but worries about their families and loved ones.
The challenge of caring for a sick parent or the anxiety that comes when a child is having trouble in school is likely to give their hearts sharper angst than questions about the Withdrawal Agreement.
Just as colleagues in an office can provide immeasurable help and the wisest counsel during a family crisis, people from different parties show one another compassion, support and solidarity.
This doesn’t undermine democracy but gives public representatives the strength to cope with the physical and mental challenges that come with the job.
AMs and MPs can relate to the difficulty of spending days and nights away from family and appreciate just how tough it is not to take a torrent of online abuse personally.
We should welcome cross-party friendships.
These can help politicians understand challenges faced by communities very different to their own, and such relationships could play an important role in draining the bile out of public life.
A divided country is unlikely to heal if its centres of power are defined by the politics of division.
With the Brexit debate likely to become more frenzied in the months ahead, politicians have a duty and an opportunity to model civility and respect; the challenge is to show not just how to win an argument while displaying decency and goodwill, but how to lose one.
There is the chance, of course, that politics itself will force a crumbling of party divisions.
The only way that supporters of any of the Brexit options stand a chance of making their preferred outcome a reality is if they work with MPs from rival parties.
Arch-Brexiteers in Conservative and DUP ranks who loathe Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement will have to coordinate their efforts to derail it, while those who want a second referendum that could stop Brexit will have to work intensely closely to stand any hope of success.
If there is an emergency election, party unity could break down if MPs do not feel they can stand under their tribe’s official manifesto. Politics could be about to get more chaotic but no less democratic.
There are important questions to be wrestled over but every MP should make it his or her ambition not to be remembered as a fevered ideologue but as someone who acted with kindness towards opponents, who would acknowledge when a rival had a better grasp of the truth of a vexing situation, and who championed their constituents with courage and integrity.