Why W Should Learn from WW; As an advisor described Wilson, "Once a decision is made it is final." But strength of character is no substitue for organizational competence.

Byline: Joseph S. Nye Jr. (Nye is Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and author most recently of "The Power Game: A Washington Novel." This piece draws on his article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs.)

George W. Bush has been described as "obsessed by the idea of being a 'transformational' president; not just a status-quo operator like Bill Clinton." Members of his administration compare him to Ronald Reagan or Harry Truman. But the 20th-century president he most resembles, for better and worse, is Woodrow Wilson.

There are uncanny similarities between Wilson and Bush. Both were highly religious and moralistic figures who were elected initially with less than a majority of the popular vote, and focused on domestic issues without any vision of foreign policy. Both were initially successful with their transformational domestic agendas in Congress. Both tended to portray the world in black and white rather than shades of gray. Both projected self-confidence, responded to a crisis with a bold vision and stuck to it.

Both relied on a close political adviser and failed to adequately manage a broad range of information inputs in their administration. As Secretary of State Robert Lansing commented in 1917, "Even established facts were ignored if they did not fit in with this intuitive sense, this semi-divine power to select the right." As a close adviser described Wilson, "Whenever a question is presented he keeps an absolutely open mind and welcomes all suggestion or advice which will lead to a correct decision. Once a decision is made it is final and there is an end to all advice and suggestion. There is no moving him after that." While persistence can be an admirable trait in a leader, it can also be dangerous when it slows course corrections.

Although sometimes described as the first M.B.A.-style president, George W. Bush displays some of the same organizational deficiencies as Wilson. As described by David Gergen, "Bush is a top-down, no-nonsense, decisive, macho leader who sets his eye on the far horizon and doesn't 'go wobbly' getting there." But strength of character is not an adequate substitute for organizational competence (such as Bush's father possessed). Information flows in the run-up to the Iraq war were clearly limited. Former secretary of State Colin Powell reported of Bush that "he knows kind of what he wants to do, and what he wants to hear is how to get it done."

Though Wilson started as an idealist and Bush as a realist, both wound up stressing the promotion of democracy and freedom in the rest of the world as their ...