Posted on 11/04/2004 11:46:49 AM PST by RWR8189
WHY DO PRESIDENTS stumble in their second terms? Four reasons. They try to govern without a real agenda, having exhausted their policy initiatives in the first term. Their wisest and most competent aides and advisers leave and are replaced by less talented people. They suffer from bad relations with Congress as a result of past scuffles and disagreements. Or they are brought down by a scandal.
President Bush need not suffer from any of these in his second term. He has an agenda, a combination of leftover issues--such as making his tax cuts permanent--and the reformed entitlements of his new "ownership society." If he acts quickly, Bush can cajole his best advisers into staying another year or two. He can smooth relations with Congress by strategizing with Republican leaders, while also warming to a few Democrats. And he can pray for no scandal.
A president without an agenda is at the mercy of his opponents. Think of Bill Clinton in 1997. His main goal was fending off House speaker Newt Gingrich. So he made a deal to cut taxes and move toward a balanced budget. That amounted to accepting Republican policies, not pursuing his own. He was politically neutered. Then he got caught up in the Monica scandal and you know the rest.
In contrast, the Bush agenda is bulging. His unfinished business consists of tax cuts, an energy bill to increase oil and gas production, tort reform, faith-based programs, and filling judgeships with conservatives. All of these were thwarted in the Senate by Democratic leader Tom Daschle, whose defeat may have a chastening effect on Democrats. "That has to send a message to the party," says Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman. "That kind of intractable opposition doesn't work."
Maybe the message will take. In any event, Bush will need Democratic allies to bring about individual investment accounts in Social Security, to introduce free market forces into our health care system, and to create incentives to saving. The White House has Democratic senators in mind: Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, the four senators from North Dakota and Arkansas. Bush hopes to make tactical alliances with one or more of them without abandoning his principles. "No one's saying it's easy," an aide comments. "It's hard." That's putting it mildly.
Then there's the national security agenda: Iraq and the war on terrorism and the campaign to spread democracy. That should keep the president focused. The Iraq election in January and the need to clean out Falluja will require enormous attention. So will Iran and North Korea. Likewise, efforts to improve relations with European countries, perhaps the only thing John Kerry convinced the nation that Bush must do to further American foreign policy. And all this touches on the matter of keeping good people. In national security, the indispensable person is not Secretary of State Colin Powell or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser. To keep Rice, Bush might have to elevate her to secretary of state. He'd be smart to do it.
The performance of White House staffs and cabinet departments often deteriorates in second terms. This doesn't have to happen, especially if Karl Rove remains as senior adviser and political director. Rove is one of those rare individuals as adept at substance as at politics. He has brought coherence to Bush initiatives, seeing to it that they make both policy and political sense. Besides, others at the Bush White House are afraid of crossing him, which is good. It cuts down on freelancing.
Bush will begin his new term with a testy relationship with Congress. But prospects are bright. Handled properly, Majority Leader Tom DeLay can get anything Bush wants through the House. But Bush has taken DeLay and other congressional Republicans for granted. He's dissed them unintentionally--which is unfortunate, considering how much he needs them. For starters, the White House must sell its ownership society to House members, many of whom are leery of fiddling with Social Security. And he must persuade them that an aggressive internationalist foreign policy is in America's interest.
The Senate is tougher. It certainly will help to have 55 rather than 51 senators. But that's hardly a filibuster-proof majority. There are moderate Republicans to worry about: John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins. On many issues, Republicans won't have an operational majority. They'll need a few Democrats, and Zell Miller won't be around anymore. Bush passed up the opportunity in his first term to make Democrat John Breaux a partner on domestic issues. Breaux was ready to deal. Bush wasn't. Now Breaux is gone. The day after the election Bush said he'd "work to earn" the support of Democrats. He'd best start right away.
Scandal in Bush Two? Who knows? The first Bush term was free of a major scandal, a fact worth boasting about. The truth is that a scandal isn't automatically crippling. It was with Nixon and Watergate, but it wasn't with Reagan and Iran-contra. Why not? Reagan was an inner-directed leader able to shut out the buzz and gossip in Washington and concentrate on his agenda. Reagan's second-term accomplishments were impressive: sweeping tax reform (with Democratic support), concessions from the Soviets, victory of democracy in Central America.
Bush's can be, too. With the illness of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the president may have to nominate a new chief justice early next year. Bush's strength is that he's not risk-averse. He's not afraid of losing. He could have trimmed the American role in Iraq for reelection purposes, but chose not to. Naming a conservative to the court would be a declaration of seriousness at the outset of his second term. Attracting a Democrat or two or three to back the nominee would show he's ready to deal for votes. A commitment to principle and a willingness to negotiate sound like they don't go together. But in politics, they do. They're the recipe for a successful presidency.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
These next four years are certainly going to be fun.
Solid advice. We need to watch out for those on our side of the aisle, as well as those on the other side of the aisle. The snake close to you is more likely to kill you than the one far away.
I am really hoping and praying that he does pass a bill which would allow me to manage a good portion of my Social Security money myself. I am looking forward to the next few years.
Any opinions on how much Dick Cheney is likely to help, and has helped, in fostering relationships with the Senate and the House and in brokering the President's agenda?
Daschle was deposed for reasons which include, but were not limited to his obstructionism. I am fairly sure that he won't be seen, by his comrades, as an example of what happens to democrats who force the President to get 60 senators to approve a judicial appointment. Chuck Schumer is a key obstructionist for the dems, and he won re-election in NY with a margin that was nearly as huge as Obama's.
The only realistic chance President Bush has of getting qualified conservative jurists onto the Supreme Court is via a procedural change. We need a rule in the Senate that disallows filibusters on judicial appointments, or some similar method of getting back to the Constitutional concept (and one that stood for over 200 years) that the President appoints jurists who are confirmed after receiving the consent of a majority (i.e., 51) senators.
If that is the President's attitude then let him prove it by telling the Senate to PUT CHARLES GRASSLEY OR PETE SESSIONS IN AS JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN.
S.P.E.C.T.R.E. can be Chairman of the Senate Agriculture subcommitee on Manure Production, something he is clearly an expert in.
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.