Reagan vs. Bush

I've been trying to think of a concise description of the difference between Reagan and Dubya. The New York Times provides us with this comment from a former Reagan official that, I think, says it best:

'Bush wants to defeat his opponents, Reagan wanted his to join him,' one former official of the Reagan White House said.

On the surface these may both sound like "your with me or against me", but in Bush's case there is the implication that if you don't join him he will destroy you while Reagan at least tried to work with his opponents to try and figure out how to bring them into the fold. With Bush, being on his side should be a given. With Reagan, it was something that he understood took work to achieve.

And, in the process of trying to achieve it, he sometimes changed as well. While Bush, who doesn't care what others think, can never change and will bring down the world with him if that is the only option available.

Reagan was someone who wanted to talk WITH me.

Bush was someone who just wanted to talk AT me.

All the difference in the world.