Credibility, Resolve, Leadership

INSIGHT magazine ^ | March 3, 2003 | Jennifer G. Hickey

[Stand Watch Listen]

Left-wing politicians serve notice they will try to bludgeon the president's proposals to death, whatever their merit.

Media Credit: Bob Riha Jr./Liason

Under Bush’s plan, states would be allowed to decide how to use federal Head Start funds.

"In reviewing again the history of the eight years from 1930 to 1938 we can see how much time we had. Up till 1934 at least German rearmament could have been prevented without the loss of a single life. It was not time that was lacking," wrote Winston Churchill in The Gathering Storm, the first book of his six-volume history of World War II.

Decrying him as a "die-hard," Churchill's colleagues in the British Parliament raised questions about his judgment and credibility, seen as prescient leadership through the lens of history. Without the benefit of historical distance, the judgment and credibility of leadership again has emerged as the issue of the day.

"If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the council will fulfill its founding purpose," said President George W. Bush in a speech before the American Enterprise Institute. For the administration, the judgment and credibility of both the nation and the international community are at stake if Iraqi violations of U.N. Resolution 1441 are without consequence.

Others perceive the disarmament of Iraq in personal terms. Former president Jimmy Carter and some Democrats have used survey results, which found that 70 percent of respondents viewed the United States as the greatest threat to peace, as reason to question the policies and credibility of the Bush administration. In a world where public opinion is a function of the immediate flow of information, the credibility of all parties is in question.

The findings of the poll Carter cited were of course shocking, but they also were distorted. In fact, the survey was conducted online by Time Europe and came with the following caveat: "Note: This is an unscientific, informal survey for the interest and enjoyment of TIME.com users and may not be indicative of popular opinion." A similar survey by The Times of London also was conducted online.

The question of U.N. credibility, as well as that of those on both sides of the Iraq issue, should be answered in a matter of weeks or months. However, reputation for trustworthiness will persist as a factor in upcoming debates in Congress as Democrats launch pre-emptory strikes against Bush. Given the comfort Americans have shown they have with Bush, this could -- as it did in 2002 -- backfire.

As Washington Post columnist David Broder noted on Feb. 9, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and congressional Democrats have resuscitated the Vietnam-era term "credibility gap" to try to indicate that the rhetoric of the Bush administration is out of step with perceived realities. Daschle told an audience at the National Press Club on the day of the State of the Union Address: "The Bush administration offers a credibility gap with a new twist. This is a White House that promises one thing knowing full well it is delivering another."

As war appeared inevitable, Democrats shifted their attention from whether to fight to the funding, criticizing the administration for not releasing cost estimates or including one in its fiscal 2004 budget.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) used a Feb. 26 hearing of the Joint Economic Committee to blast as "irresponsible and inappropriate" the decision to wait for uncertainties to become less obscure. No such outrage was expressed at a similar decision by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to forgo inclusion of the potential cost of war in its economic forecast. Both the CBO and the administration have maintained that unknowns such as length of military action, possible contributions by other nations and the amount and type of armaments to be used make such an estimate unrealistic. News reports put the estimates at between $60 billion and $100 billion.

As congressional Democrats and presidential candidates strive to gain traction to exploit the softness of an economy hit hard by uncertainty, their credibility is front and center. And even if you are stupid, you know that means trotting out the well-worn slogan that "it's the economy" that ails the electorate.

Shortly before the resignation of R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, was made public he argued that the state of the economy is mixed. He said that looking through one lens the "flexibility and dynamism" of the U.S. economy remain positive signs considering it continues to grow -- albeit at a slow rate -- despite the trauma of a recession from the impact of Sept. 11 and the exposure of corporate malfeasance.

Through another lens, he argued, the dominant role in the stagnant economy played by trends in business investment remains a concern. That is, the continuing environment of uncertainty has led businesses to refrain from moving forward with new investments and hiring, a trend unlikely to be reversed until geopolitical crises at least are stabilized and Congress takes action on an economic plan.

But Stark clearly was viewing the Bush plan through a partisan lens heavily tinted by liberal economic theory. The combative Californian characterized the administration's view of which taxpayers would benefit, and by how much, as "poop." He was no more charitable when "discussing" a Back to Work Incentive Act proposal. Hours after the measure was moved out of subcommittee to the full House Education and the Workforce Committee (on a party-line vote), Stark announced it to be useless because there are no jobs for which to train workers. The measure would provide as much as $3,000 (in addition to unemployment benefits) for unemployed workers to be used at their discretion for a variety of options including job training, day care and relocation costs.

Straining all credibility, Stark insisted that the GOP proposals were modeled after Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," a darkly satirical essay that advocated having the poor eat their children as a proper solution to overpopulation and poverty. Before Hubbard's early departure, Stark told him he should read Swift "over again, because it will probably give you some ideas on how to help the poor."

Echoing the "starving children" theme were Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the "brasserie buddies," who criticized administration plans to afford states greater flexibility in implementing the Head Start program. Leaving no childhood image behind, they argued cash-starved state governments might use the funds to feed other programs at the expense of childhood education and nutrition.

Elimination, not streamlining, is their stealthy goal, Dodd intoned: "And let's be clear. This isn't about strengthening Head Start -- it's about diluting services to poor children." The senior senator from Connecticut, who is mulling over a run for the Democratic presidential nomination, contends some states may steer part of the $6.5 billion Head Start funds to other programs and that the federal government would be a more responsible steward of those monies.

Since the birth of Head Start in the heady liberal days of 1965, the federal government has appropriated money directly to communities to operate early-development programs for low-income children. The Bush proposal would allow states to shape their own programs. The administration says participating states would be required to submit a plan to show how they would offer comprehensive services.

Dodd has pledged "one hell of a contest" with the Bush administration, which also plans to "transition" the program to the Department of Education from the Department of Health and Human Services. The rhetoric may be aimed at Bush, but the reality is that it will be Sen. Judd Gregg, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, with whom Dodd will be dealing. The New Hampshire Republican welcomed the additional flexibility urged by Bush.

Removing "bureaucratic barriers," contends Gregg, will allow governors and state legislators to "tailor these pre-kindergarten programs in ways that are most effective in serving the children of their states." He notes that only 20 percent of children attend Head Start all day, all year long.

The picture of education reform, however, should not be colored only by budget numbers, say administration officials. In an address at a Hoover Institution conference marking the 20th anniversary of the landmark Nation at Risk report, Education Secretary Rod Paige said the trillions of dollars spent on "solving" the education failings outlined in the 1983 report have not closed the achievement gap suffered by children of the poor. Without accountability standards, as well as consequences for failing those standards, reform cannot be realized.

Paige said accountability is regarded as important in his agency. For the first time in years, the Department of Education has been given a clean audit, only the second in its history. Also, Paige led the effort to eliminate waste and fraud, including limiting users of government credit cards and lowering the spending limits on those cards from $300,000 to $2,500.

But in Washington a program's success and political dedication to an issue tend to be measured by appropriations. Despite including an increase of 21 percent in overall K-12 funding, the upcoming reauthorization of funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Head Start likely will boil down to an incredible spend-off.

Jennifer G. Hickey is a writer for Insight.
email the author