The Leaderboard

Most Read: National

From the Blogosphere

Jena McGregor

Jena McGregor

Staff writer Jena McGregor teases out the leadership issues in the day’s news.

Tom Fox

Tom Fox

Guest contributor Tom Fox, of the Partnership for Public Service, writes weekly about issues in the federal workplace.

Lillian Cunningham

Lillian Cunningham

Lillian Cunningham is the editor of On Leadership and writes features for the section.

Post Leadership
Posted at 01:16 PM ET, 05/05/2011

Wreath ceremony: Why Bush made the right decision not to attend

President Obama will lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site on May 5, 2011, after U.S. forces killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan on May 1, 2011. (MIKE SEGAR)
It’s hard to tell the real reason why former President Bush did not accept President Obama’s invitation to join him for laying a wreath at the site of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on Thursday afternoon. Perhaps he really just wants to stay out of the spotlight, as his spokesperson has stated. Maybe he thinks the whole thing is a shameless victory lap for Obama, and that his administration isn’t getting enough credit, as the New York Daily News reported.

Whatever the reason, he made the right decision. Not because he doesn’t deserve some credit for the events of this week—he does. And not because all the glory should go to the current president—it shouldn’t. Rather, Bush’s decline of the invitation is the appropriate response for a former president in a country that faces raw political divisions and mounting political dysfunction. 

One might say that the image of President Bush and President Obama standing side by side, laying a wreath on Ground Zero to honor the dead, would go a long way toward presenting a united front on the war on terror. Whether it was President Bush’s policies or President Obama’s focus and risk-taking that helped locate and kill the Sept. 11 mastermind, the sight of the two of them honoring the dead of Sept. 11 could be the ultimate expression of bipartisanship.

Perhaps it would. But I also think that Bush’s presence, given the current debates over who should get credit and who isn’t getting their due, could spark further broadsides from either Republicans or Democrats, taking away from the solemnity of the moment and the lives the president’s visit is meant to honor. I can already imagine the cable news dissection of every move both men make: Did Obama just wince when Bush flashed that grin at the cameras? Did Bush just grimace at the president’s words about the war on terror? Why are the two men standing so far apart?

The reality of the post-presidency—one that Bush has accepted and embraced with impressive grace, in my view—is that it’s not about you anymore. It’s the same reason I believe retired CEOs shouldn’t hang around and become chairmen, or that government leaders shouldn’t return after they’ve left as consultants. The best way forward is with the focus on today’s leader, without the distractions, good or bad, of the past.

Everyone remembers the emotional moment when Bush, holding a megaphone and standing atop a pile of rubble following Sept. 11, addressed the firefighters and emergency workers at Ground Zero. That was his moment. One hopes that the reason Bush isn’t attending is that he realizes that this is Obama’s, and that by not attending, he is helping the country to move forward.

More from On Leadership:

Panel discussion: The art of persistence?

A game of musical jobs in national security

In Osama mission, the power of accomplishment

For a distributed network like al Qaeda, what does the loss of a leader mean?

By  |  01:16 PM ET, 05/05/2011

Read what others are saying

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company