[Mb-civic] The Bush presidency Shock and awe

[Michael Butler]

   Click here to find out more!

Economist.com      
    

    

The Bush presidency

Shock and awe
Jan 27th 2005 | WASHINGTON, DC
>From The Economist print edition


The gap between rhetoric and reality is growing in the White House

MOST presidents get more defensive and hesitant as they go on. George Bush
is getting bolder. Since his re-election, the president has committed
himself to transforming, among other things, Iraq, the Middle East, the tax
system, pensions and the legal system. Phew. If he were allowed to win a
third term, what would he do for an encore?

Yet the gap between Mr Bush's rhetoric and what is actually happening, or is
likely to happen, is embarrassingly wide. The day after his ³freedom speech²
his officials fanned out to explain that he didn't really mean anything
specific. In Iraq things are not going according to plan‹if indeed the
administration actually has a plan (see article). Tax reform has been
sidelined to a commission, with action this year, next year, sometime. His
attempt to privatise part of the Social Security system is in trouble even
before it starts.

The gap between ambition and follow-through at home can partly be blamed on
the fact that Mr Bush has yet to start revealing the details of his policy.
But in foreign policy, the contradiction looks well established.
Neo-conservatives, who loved the inauguration speech, claim that Mr Bush is
undermining it through the people he has appointed. Condoleezza Rice, the
newly confirmed secretary of state, needs watching. Bob Zoellick, her chosen
number two, seems to know far too many foreign ambassadors. As for Nicholas
Burns, touted for number three, he lives in Belgium. And now Douglas Feith,
one of the few neocons with real power, is leaving the Pentagon ³for
personal reasons².

There is often a gap between promise and achievement in politics‹and nearly
always one in inauguration speeches, which are supposed to be aspirational.
What is unusual about Mr Bush's ambition is the way it is centred on what
might be called ³discretionary policies².

Social Security privatisation, tax reform, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein
and the ³war on tyranny² are all causes Mr Bush chose to espouse. He was not
forced to take them on by events, and no one would have censured him (much)
had he not mounted these hobby-horses. In contrast, many of his other
policies have either been ³reactive² (the overthrow of the Taliban, the ³war
on terror²) or are more conventional, with deep roots in Republican
tradition (like cutting taxes).

The discretionary element makes Mr Bush's job much harder. Compare, for
instance, the bipartisan support Mr Bush received for his ³reactive² war in
Afghanistan with the more patchy support he received from Democrats for his
discretionary quest in Iraq; or the initial acclaim for the ³war on terror²
with the mixed response to his new ³war on tyranny².

And this is about to get worse. In pursuing his earlier aims, Mr Bush either
had the country behind him or, if not, could get his policies implemented
because they united his party and divided Democrats (this was the case with
the tax cuts). But now, his ³discretionary² wish-list is not popular (most
people oppose Social Security privatisation). And it is dividing his own
party while uniting Democrats.

Mr Bush has already had trouble with supporters in the House of
Representatives who held up a bill on intelligence reform. Now, several
Republican congressmen have begun to ask pointedly why the president is in
such a hurry to reform Social Security, whose solvency problems are not as
bad as Medicare's. And the opposition has rallied around the cause of
stopping ³privatisation².

Ronald Reagan also had grand ambitions and an unco-operative Congress. He
got round the problem by winning over the country‹which then put pressure on
its elected representatives. But Mr Bush's approval rating is only around
50%, considerably lower than that of any recent re-elected president. Even
evangelical Christians, his most faithful (excuse the term) supporters, are
displaying anxiety. The New York Times has reported that a group of
conservative churches wrote to the president's chief adviser, Karl Rove,
asking why Social Security reform has been given priority over a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (on which Mr Bush told
the Washington Post on January 16th that ³Nothing will happen²).

Even partial reform of Social Security, a modest tax simplification, and a
slightly democratic and stabler Iraq would be considerable achievements. But
Mr Bush's revolutionary rhetoric has left plenty of room for disappointment.


Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights
reserved.