Mark Steyn: How Bush blew his chance

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 09/16/2002 | Mark Steyn

[Pokey78]

The president's speech to the United Nations was perfectly straightforward. His remarks at Ellis Island were also fine: I especially liked the way, in contrast to certain predecessors who shall remain nameless, his salute to the American spirit wasn't all about him. But the anniversary has passed, Year Two has begun, and those of who are partial to George W. Bush have nevertheless had to get used yet again to the old familiar pattern. Anyone who followed the guy during the 2000 campaign will recognize it.

He stacked up more money and a bigger poll lead than anyone had ever seen in a competitive race--and then he didn't bother campaigning in New Hampshire. So he lost the primary.

But he clawed his way back and won the nomination--and then he pretty much disappeared from sight to spend the summer working on his new ranch house back in Texas. So by Labor Day, Al Gore was ahead in the polls.

But he roused himself and eked out a small lead in the run-up to November--and then, in the wake of a damaging last-minute leak about an old DWI conviction, he flew back home and took the final weekend of the campaign off.

But he just about squeaked through on Election Day, even though his disinclination to rebut the drunk story almost certainly cost him the popular vote and a couple of close states.

This is the way George W. Bush does things, and his rendezvous with history on Sept. 11--the day that ''changed the world''--did not, in the end, change the Bush modus operandi. A few weeks after the attacks, he had the highest approval ratings of any president in history. But he didn't do anything with them. And, in political terms, he might as well have spent this summer playing golf and watching the director's cut of Austin Powers.

On Election Day in November, without Saddam's scalp on his bedpost, Bush will be right back where he was on Sept. 10, 2001: the 50 percent president, his approval ratings in the 50s, his ''negatives'' high, the half of the country that didn't vote for him feeling no warmer toward him than if the day that ''changed the world'' had never happened. The 90 percent poll numbers were always going to come down. It was just a question of where they stabilized, and what Bush would manage to accomplish while they were up in the stratosphere. By that measure, he squandered his opportunity.

The first casualty was his domestic agenda. Even as the USAF was strafing Tora Bora, Vermont's wily Sen. Pat Leahy continued to stall the president's judicial nominations; Ted Kennedy gutted the Bush education bill, and their fellow Democrats obstructed plans for oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At that moment, with his poll numbers in the 80s, it would have been so easy for Bush to do to Leahy what Clinton did to Gingrich.

The president could have said that, with so many suspected terrorists and their accomplices in custody, we can't afford vacancies and backlogs in our courthouses and my good frien' Pat needs to stop playin' politics with the federal judiciary. He could have said that wartime is no time for Congress to put preserving the integrity of Alaska's most pristine mosquito habitat over the energy needs of America. Sept. 11 is not just an event, hermetically sealed from everything before and after, but a context: Everything that's wrong with the eco-zealots, with the teachers' unions, with the big-government bureaucracies can be seen in their responses to that day. Bush should have struck in their hour of weakness; instead, he gave them all a pass: The time-servers and turf-protectors in the FBI, CIA and the other hotshot acronyms that failed America on 9/11 are all still in their jobs.

Perhaps the president's greatest mistake was his failure to take on the enervating Oprahfied therapeutic culture that, in the weeks after Sept. 11, looked momentarily vulnerable. There were two kinds of responses to that awful day. You could go with ''C'mon, guys, let's roll!'' the words of Todd Beamer as he and the brave passengers of Flight 93 took on their Islamist hijackers. Or you could go with ''healing'' and ''closure'' and the rest of the awful inert language of emotional narcissism. Had Bush taken it upon himself to talk up the virtues of courage and self-reliance demonstrated on Flight 93, he would have done a service not just to his nation but to his party, for a touchy-feely culture inevitably trends Democratic.

But he ducked the rhetorical challenge. And so, to mark the anniversary of Sept. 11, the teachers union encouraged us to stand around in a ''healing circle,'' so that America's children can master the consolations of victimhood rather than the righteous anger of the unjustly attacked. Same for the grown-ups: On TV, Diane Sawyer, Connie Chung and the rest of the all-star sob sisters were out in force with full supporting saccharine piano accompaniment. The elites decided America's anger needed to be managed. It was a very Sept. 10 commemoration of Sept. 11. As the law professor Eugene Volokh put it to his own students, ''Wake up and smell the burning bodies.'' Despite the flags and the more robust country songs, Bush has allowed the culture to lapse back into its default mode of psychobabbling self-absorption.

In the end, even Bush's magnificent moral clarity faded away into a Colin Powellite blur. Long after it became clear that 3,000 Americans were killed by Saudi citizens with Saudi money direct from members of the Saudi royal family, Bush was still inviting Saudi princes to the Crawford ranch and insisting that the kingdom was a ''staunch friend'' in the war against terror. This is not just ridiculous but offensive. Even if it's merely ''rope-a-dope'' and behind the scenes all kinds of plans are being made, the public evasions diminish the president's authority. Symbolism matters. The White House is for business, the privilege of kicking loose at the ranch ought to be reserved for real friends. Yet Australia's John Howard, whose boys fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan, didn't get an invite to Crawford, and the fellows who bankrolled al-Qaida did.

In January, naming Iraq as part of the ''axis of evil,'' Bush declared that ''time is running out." Eight months later, time had run back in again. ''I'm a patient man,'' the president says every couple of days now. By May, the American people were back to ticking ''education'' as the most pressing issue facing the nation. Four months ago, I wrote that if war with Iraq isn't under way by the first anniversary of Sept. 11, George W. Bush might as well nickname himself President Juan Term. Since then, the evaporation of the Bush presidency has only accelerated. George W. Bush's modesty is endearing. But even a modest man needs to use the bully pulpit once in a while.

[varon]

Bush has not used his "political capital" gained from 911 because he does not want to make the WOT a political issue.

What you say appears to be correct which leads a person to wander if WOT is not a political issue, just what is Bush’s political issue/agenda? Remove WOT from the table and what does he have? Nothing!

[iconoclast]

A veto is as loud as it gets. He's made it clear umpteen times that he will veto and why he will veto.

Did I nod off? What did he veto last?

[300winmag]

I still think Bush is a great President......but he has let his arms be twisted too much by those with no morals and no concern for this country (i.e., little Tommy fufu, Kennedy the murderer, and Leaky Leahy).

Steyn has some good points, but he's not taking into account the one thing that must never be said publicly. The "loyal opposition" of the DemocRATic Party will work to see the United States defeated in this war, if they think it will help them regain power. The klintons don't care about anthrax or nukes, because they know the dead will continue to vote democRATic in the big cities anyway. A few thousand, or a few million, dead Americans mean nothing to them.

The RATs' job is to deny Bush everything on both the domestic and international front. That way, they can proclaim him a total failure in the 2004 election. And if they can win a RAT majority in the House in November, expect a bill of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. That would be followed by pressure to "do the right thing" and resign, which klinton never did.

The raghead tyrants and their armies of islamic terrorists are dangerous, but they ain't got nothin' on Bill and Hitlery. So Bush has to constantly watch this other enemy of the American people, too.

[iconoclast]

What business dealings?

This is not a topic that I have any particular knowledge about, so I ask this question without bias to either you or Jack.

Haven't the Bushes and Cheney made fortunes in the oil extraction equipment/supplies business?

[carton253]

And if America doesn't know why by now, then America isn't paying attention.

[BlueNgold]

I'm going out on a limb here - nothing strange in that - but PERHAPS GWB learned something about the politics of war when Bush41 was in office. A quick strike overnight success yields only short term popularity. If - and this is a HUGE if - there is to be a political angle to his war-time popularity then we have already learned the hard way that the time to play that card is not in the first half. I firmly believe from previous experience and talk with friends still on the 'inside' that things are progressing at an orderly pace.

My take: the administration knows that some big fights are still on the horizon for the military, so further war-time popularity/political capital can be expected - and that they are going to wait for a later date to use any horsepower they may perceive. There are bigger fish to fry than the education bill.

[jwalsh07]

Did I nod off?

Yep, the discussion was specifically about the Homeland Security Bill.

[iconoclast]

the discussion was specifically about the Homeland Security Bill.

Thank you. I guess I nodded off when you were appointed ultimate definer of topic limitation, too.

[Sabertooth]

...PERHAPS GWB learned something about the politics of war when Bush41 was in office. A quick strike overnight success yields only short term popularity. If - and this is a HUGE if - there is to be a political angle to his war-time popularity then we have already learned the hard way that the time to play that card is not in the first half.

This appears to be both counterintuitive and in contradiction of events.

GHWB's popularity peaked at the end of the Gulf War. Where do you recall seeing him attempting to use his war-time popularity in the "first half?"

It's my recollection that he didn't play any card in either half, thereby squandering many opportunities. Bush41 thought he could ride his January '91 popularity to victory in November '92 by playing prevent defense. The consequence of this mistake was eight years of Clinton.

Political capital is different that political favors. Political capital can't be banked, it only evaporates in a vault. Political capital is accrued by the spending of it, provided it's investment results in further victories.

When a politician, particularly an Executive, is presented by circumstances or strategy with a windfall of political capital, that capital should be swiftly reinvested in winnable victories. Each subsequent victory will build momentum and augment that politician's political capital. In successfully following this strategy, the politician will retain the political captial he instinctively sought to save for the future victory he really wanted to win. Spending political capital in the now enhances the chances of victory in both the present and the future.

The Democrats are like much of the Arab world: they are emotional bullies, and cowards at heart. The best policy with either is victory after victory.

[MeekOneGOP]

Bump !

[mercy]

**** a fighting, consistent pro-Constitutional conservative****

Unfortunately my congresscritter Ron Paul would never be elected by this debauched nation.

[mercy]

In answer to your question.

See Ronald Wilson Reagan.

[Sabertooth]

I don’t know when people will wake up to the fact that GW is NOT a politician...

They're all politicians, even the ones we like.

What Bush isn't, is a scumbag.

Bush has not used his "political capital" gained from 911 because he does not want to make the WOT a political issue.

This is thankfully untrue. As with all other matters concerning politicians, the War on Terror is a political issue. It cannot be otherwise, and this is not changed by the fact that the WoT's political alternatives present us with a choice between right and wrong which is more stark than usual. Success in the War will require successful mastery in the politics surrounding it.

Despite a few missteps, the President has largely mastered the politics of the WoT, and that's a sincere compliment.

[Notforprophet]

Great quote from Sun Tzu

[maica]

What about Reagan specifically? I want to know specifically where and when President Bush should appear to access this Bully Pulpit. I hear the criticism that he is not using it and all I want to know is what are people visualizing when they make that statement.

[maica]

President Bush will be speaking somewhere this morning, I just saw the promo on FoxNews - his remarks will be carried live at 11:55am. I am assuming that this is not the kind of Bully Pulpit to which you are referring .

[Aric2000]

What I mean is that he had LOTS of political capital, the problem with that capitol is that it has a short Shelf life.

He should have used the bully pulpit to get his judges on the bench, he should have used it to get his bills through the senate. He should have shouted from the rooftops about domestic things while his poll numbers were in the stratosphere.

He didn't and it's a shame that all that political capitol was wasted.

I know that he chooses his battles, but he had enough capitol for all of that and more, but he chose not to use it, and that I will never understtand.

[mercy]

It would take a book or two to detail how Reagan did what he did and I'm lazy so I'll distill it down to a nubbin.

By the second term of Reagan average college studens in vast numbers all over America were identifying themselves as 'conservative'. Reagan had defined conservatism and linked it with a new resurgence and pride in 'The American Way.

He turned millions of disaffected babby boomers from Vietnam era depressives (like me) into proud Americans and made them think about what was really going on around this planet.

He did this speaking directly to the American people and LEADING. He defied his handlers and touched the heart of our society.

Then came GHWB and betrayed everything Reagan ever stood for. Then we got clintoon.

Twelve years of backsliding and debauchery.

Bush needs to understand this. If he could break the BUSH curse of mediocrity and institutionalized 'bureaucratism' that seems to be part of his genetic material ... he could be a great man.

I'm not holding my breath.

[RAT Patrol]

Lots of truth in here, Pokey, whether we like it or not. Thank you, Howlin. (He's a loveable guy, sure, but his strengths are also his weaknesses I think.)

[maica]

He should have used the bully pulpit to get his judges on the bench, he should have used it to get his bills through the senate. He should have shouted from the rooftops about domestic things while his poll numbers were in the stratosphere.

The bully pulpit is then a type of statement? Are you aware that he speaks in public almost every day? He specifically asks Americans to demand from their elected representatives in the House and the Senate, that they respond to his requests for his judicial nominations to be acted upon, that his Homeland Security Bill be acted upon,etc - I could go on. If you do know that then I will have to conclude that it is his style of delivering the message that doesn't reach the level of Bully Pulpit.