Posted on 07/28/2002 7:51:44 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
The travails of George Bush
It's the economy, boss
George Bush is losing control of the American political agenda
CAN it really be happening again? A decade ago, George Bush senior let a seemingly simple re-election slip out of his grasp, as economic problems and a perception that the president was out of touch obscured his triumphs abroad. Now the son for whom that defeat was a cataclysmic experience also appears to be drifting, as the war against terrorism has given way to corporate scandals, falling stockmarkets and the idea that a rich Republican president is out of touch.
George Bush junior is not in as bad a fix as his father was—not least because he does not face re-election for another two-and-a-half years. But he is still in a fix. The man who promised to clean up Washington, DC, now finds his press conferences dominated by corporate shenanigans at Harken Energy (where he was a director) and Halliburton (where Dick Cheney was boss). His reaction to America's “crisis of capitalism” has been derided as meek. His attempt to calm the stockmarkets has failed. His huge tax cut has helped push the government into deficit. Abroad, his allies have sniped at Mr Bush about his policies towards Afghanistan, Arafat and agriculture (just to name things beginning with A).
The Democrats now talk confidently of taking back the House of Representatives in the November mid-term elections, giving them control of Congress (see article). It would be foolish to be certain of this: the Republicans might, for instance, lose the House but regain control of the Senate, where local personalities matter more. But the fact that voters will receive their ravaged 401(k) pension statements in October will not help Mr Bush's troops.
Even without a Democratic Congress, the legislative agenda seems to be slipping away from the conservative ideals he once trumpeted. All the current proposals seem to be about increasing the scope of government. Of course, some of the new bureaucracy stems from security measures; but the shift to bigger government ranges from prescription drugs to farmers. The notion of Mr Bush now steering through anything with the scope of his tax cut or his education bill seems remote. All in all, the impression is of a presidency on the defensive—and considerably smaller than it once seemed.
This unflattering image is partly a trick of perspective. Back when Mr Bush began his presidency, the idea that he might lose control of Congress in the mid-term elections was close to accepted wisdom. Presidents tend to get clobbered after a couple of years; Ronald Reagan bounced back emphatically from a poor result in 1986, Bill Clinton from a catastrophe in 1994. Only a year ago, Mr Bush was in a pickle, after the defection of Senator Jim Jeffords handed the upper chamber to the Democrats. Step back a little, and the “extraordinary” part of Mr Bush's presidency is not the current downturn in his political fortunes, but the surge that occurred after September 11th. And he still keeps a bit of that shine: even now, his approval ratings remain comfortably positive. Imagine, just for the sake of argument, that the economy were to keep growing and Mr Bush were to depose Saddam Hussein by next summer. In that case, he could well romp to victory in 2004.
Politics is about momentum, and for the moment Mr Bush is rolling downhill
That is possible. Yet Mr Bush would be foolish to take too much comfort, for two reasons. First, politics is about momentum, and for the moment he is rolling downhill. Though it is easy to imagine him recovering triumphantly from his current predicament, it could also get worse. The economy could follow the stockmarket (see article). The probes into Mr Bush's and Mr Cheney's past could turn up something nasty. The war against Iraq could go badly, or it could be delayed by events in the Middle East, where his current peace “plan” looks ever less adequate. And, second, his current poor showing is not just a matter of political spin; it reflects real disappointments.
The disappearing presidency
The Economist endorsed Mr Bush two years ago, and we have given strong support to America's war against terrorism. After September 11th, he proved a brave leader, sometimes magnificently patient and determined, surpassing this newspaper's expectations of how he might handle such a crisis. But there have also been disappointments. His economic policy has too often been amateurish and rigid. His fiscal policy still seems to be based on making his gigantic tax cut permanent after 2010 rather than worrying about stimulus now. His trade policy—notably his steel tariffs and farm subsidies—has been discouraging. Abroad, his foreign-policy successes have been undermined by a needlessly self-centred strain: allies have been pointlessly antagonised, domestic lobby groups cravenly indulged (the UN was the target, this week, again—see article).
From this perspective, “gridlock”, with different parties in charge of the Congress and White House, might not be bad for America. A Democratic Congress might enlighten a few of his more blinkered urges in foreign policy and may even bring his economic policy into line—though it would be unlikely to help on trade. In a perfect world, Mr Bush would veto Democratic spending splurges, while the Democrats stopped more tax cuts (though they could both indulge the other's weakness). But there are things that Mr Bush plainly needs to do sooner.
The priority has to be the economy. Signing a just-passed bill that will regulate auditors more closely (a drive Mr Bush should have led, not resisted) is not enough. As The Economist went to press, the White House was making a belated push to get “fast-track” trade promotion authority through Congress. It is also clear that he needs to change his economic team, which has no steadying figure to match, say, Donald Rumsfeld at defence. Holding the line on spending will be extremely hard, not least because of Mr Bush's own profligacy.
And the war against terrorism? This, more than ever, seems the heart of the Bush presidency. Mr Bush has enjoyed wide support at home and abroad, largely because he has generally been seen to be acting in the interests of the whole world. Soon the issue of Iraq will present itself. Any well-founded impression that the timing is governed by domestic political concerns would be ruinous. The Bush presidency can cope with a little fading; it cannot cope with a general perception that it cares only for its own survival.
The entire premise of this article is off-base.
The economy is strong and in fact is recovering from the recession Bush inherited from Clinton/Gore.
The U.S. economy expanded during the first quarter at a 6.1 percent annual rate, the fastest in more than two years.
Business investment is up, unemployment is down, economic activity is increasing and inflation is low.
Of course the Dems and liberal media love to paint a picture of doom and gloom in an attempt to drag down Bush's high approval numbers. This is no surprise.
Also, their unquestioning buy-in to global warming and faulure to look at price-based methods for pollution control show a distinct bias against free market alternatives. As much as the magazine has meant much to me over the years, I am seriously considering dumping it in favor of the more expensive Agora Publications (e.g., Strategic Investment, The Oxford Club Newsletter and the Fleet Street Newsletter) which I already subscribe to.
Who on earth is saying our beloved W has gone wrong? NO ONE, that's who. But they think they can TELL US he is and we will believe it...
I think what should be remembered is that the first maxim of public/political/legal opinion is this: It is not what you know but what you can prove; and it is not what you are but what you appear to be!
You and I know that GW has been doing the 'best he can' to rectify issues that have been afflicting the nation, ranging from terrorism to the economy. However the thing is that it appears there is growing public sentiment that maybe GW is not doing the job right!
For example last weekt here was a report on Fox News that said although GWs polls still show he has an approval rating in the high sixties, a synchronous poll that asked whether 'you would vote for GW in a re-election' showed that he only got a positive poll in the mid 40s! Which is interesting since his polls are high, but the number of people who would re-elect him are below 50% of the scientific sample (by Fox not CNN or ABC).
And going back to the maxim of appearance a good example is the economy. The economy is indeed strong! It is growing and seems set to grow for sometime. What is having problems is the Stock Market! While the GDP is growing the stock market seems to be floundering, and getting worse (the reason i am sayin worse is if you do a graphical analysis it is doing what is known as a quadruple top ....which to chartist investors is the worst scenario possible in a domestic or foreign market. but luckily some say it has hit bottom ....but i do not know).
Thus people lose money, and all oft heir life savings and 401(K)s in the market, and automatically assume (for good reasons by the way) that the economy is in shambles when it is not. And it seems the White House is not doing anything to rectify this (even though it is) and the democrats take this prime opportunity to attack GW and link him with corporate crime.
And then there is disention in some Republican camps when they realize that GW has expanded the government more in 2 years than Clinton did in 8 years; plus some prgrams like TIPS that seem rather like something a socialist liberal woudl propose.
And then the media (like the Economist in the above article) start churning out reports depicting Bush as inefficient, inept or indifferent to the constitution. And if that message is repeated enough times what happens is that people start believing it hook line and sinker.
And yes, it may seem i have low regard for the mass rabble' but i have reasons for that. For example the same thing happened to George Bush the senior. The media attacked him, linking him to a failing economy, and then an uber-charismatic Democrat presidential candidate came over (Clinton) and Bush lost. And this was despite Bush's huge apporval ratings stemming from the Gulf War.
Anyways let me just say that GW still needs to be on his toes. For example let's say another terrorist attack occurs! Remember most of the victories against terrorism will be covert and thus secret (to avoid revealing intelligence assets and sources to the enemy). How would he explain that attack to the media and masses? Would he say: 'I know there was another terrorist attack, but let me assure you we are still winning the battle against global terror. I JUST CANNOT TELL YOU what we have done TO AVOID AIDING OUR ENEMY.'
That makes sense to me, and probably to you. BUT do you think the media and the democrats will let it rest? No way jose! They will clamor to attack like sharks in a chum fest! Remember the first maxim is not what you know but what you can prove!
Anyways althoguh GW may be doing a good job he is definitely not doing a good job of showing he is doing a good job. Chew through that and see what i mean.
Sad to say, The Economist has fallen into the Blairite New Labour tendency. I remember when the paper was a reliably conservative organ of restrained Conservative opinion. This Leader article is merely a regurgitation of the wish-dreams of the Washington, D.C., chattering classes. Be Seeing You,
Chris
You got that right. He looked much older now than he did when he was the Governor of Texas. Goes with the job, I guess.
But he's not the President of the Whole, Wide World, he's the President of the United States of America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.