Return to the event page for How Would Each Candidate Govern?
View the summary for the John Kerry session
October 2004
As the presidential race tightens and Election Day draws near, now more than ever, important questions surrounding the governing styles of the two candidates need to be addressed. Growing interest in management skills has caused a marked increase in newspaper and magazine articles on John Kerry's past governing experiences and predictions on how President Bush would direct priorities in a second term. The AEI and Brookings Institutions series on "How Would They Govern?" has been at the forefront of this debate. The fourth and final installment of the series highlighted predictions on how the candidates would turn their promises into reality, how they would work with Congress, and how they would set legislative priorities. At an October 21 conference Thomas E. Mann, Brookings Institution; Carla Robbins, Wall Street Journal; and Alexis Simendinger, National Journal, discussed how President George W, Bush would govern during a second term, and AEI's John C. Fortier moderated this discussion.
Thomas E. Mann
Brookings Institution
The question of governing grows in importance as we come closer to Election Day. What are the possible constraints on governing? Looking back on second terms historically causes a cautionary response. Historian David Gergen reflected in past events on patterns that have emerged over time. First, there is hubris after Election Day, a sense of validation for what was done in the first term. This leads to a "full speed ahead" mentality that often distorts a normal perspective of what lies in the future. Second, the six-year mid-term election typically produces a loss for the president's party. This tends to take the wind out of a second-term president's sail. Third, administrations have a tendency of falling prey to scandal in a second term, for example: Clinton and Lewinsky, Reagan and Iran-Contra, Nixon and Watergate, Johnson and the war, Eisenhower and minor scandal. Finally, there is the matter of flagging energy. People are exhausted in the White House by the end of a second campaign. Part of that is altered by the infusion of new people, but it is impossible to entirely escape. These events are not guaranteed to reoccur, but someone who is returning to a second term must be aware of what has happened in the past. We have seen major legislation passed and important foreign policy decisions made during second terms. Any wise president returning to office would start a second term with focus and clarity, but also a restraint of ego.
There are three broad clusters of constraints Bush will have to wrestle with if reelected: First is that of policy inheritance. The world is fundamentally different than the first time he took office, so he must have a new perspective on priorities. Second, the margins in both Houses will be narrow; legislation will not be filibuster proof in the Senate; and the president will have to work hard to find legislation that appeals to moderate members of Congress. Third is the political environment. In 2000 Bush could claim to be a uniter since he was seen as one in Texas; now he is viewed as a divider. He must aptly deal with the deep partisan divide in Congress in order to achieve any legislative success.
Carla Robbins
Wall Street Journal
Most experts originally thought of Bush as a moderate and an internationalist. If not for September 11, he would have been that. No matter who takes office next January, Iraq will be a top priority. Any president will have to go back to Congress and ask for more money and will be forced to review the status of our military capabilities. Right now, we do not have enough troops, and the war has strained our abilities. This administration has not had time to focus on Korea or Iran like they should have. New personnel choices will indicate whether the president has learned any lessons from his first term.
This administration has a certain black-hole quality about it: it is very difficult to determine the rationale behind some decisions or predict what will happen next. Bush was a very moderate governor, and many thought that as president, he would be more like his father. The administration felt a need to set itself apart from the Clinton administration, but its policy plan did not differ greatly from that of Bush's father. September 11, however, changed all previous foreign-policy planning. The need to decide the best way to protect America shaped Bush's policies. The administration felt pushed to act quickly and decisively, even if it meant without our allies. The administration is trying hard to project that they are multilateralist and will focus on doing so during a second term.
We knew that George W. Bush would never completely mirror his father because he did not have the world experience that his father had. But it was impossible to perceive at the beginning that his advisers would end up being neo-conservatives. Brent Scowcroft tutored National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Vice President Cheney was not viewed as a neo-con initially. When the first term of the administration began, China was the biggest concern. Things changed though. Iraq was not in the forefront of their minds when they took office and did not become an apparent issue until after 9/11.
If you watch the president lately, the only thing that truly captivates him is international affairs. Bush does not necessarily feel he is transcendently good at international affairs, but he feels he is transcendently right about it. The pressing issue is the possibility of another terrorist attack, which would define a second term. Interestingly enough, it would probably define it domestically. The administration has established the Department of Homeland Security and prescribed intelligence reforms, but if there is another attack, there will be a lot of internal focus on what was not done domestically after 9/11.
Alexis Simendinger
National Journal
The "lessons of Dad" were an overarching theme of the first-term transition. The president was determined not to make the mistakes of his father. His father's squandering of political capital haunted the entire Bush team. Any political capital that Bush may have coming out of a 2004 win will not be used to propagate a "mandate." President Bush never constructs policy using a mandate. He just comes out and does what he wants to get done. What is it about a second term that may change his thinking? Nothing much. If the president wins reelection, why would he change what he perceives as obviously working? It is not in the president's makeup to change. The administration will be corralled by what Congress can help them with, and by the calendar. Further, the president has set himself up for some difficulty because what you say to get elected does not usually help you govern. He has to try to muddy the picture by using very ambiguous statements in order to bring in as many voters as possible. It is very difficult to govern if you have not established for Congress and the electorate a clear idea of where you want to go.
As for personnel changes in a second term, most reporting indicates that Bush is happy with his team and is not interested in doing a huge, clean sweep that would in effect look as if he is saying "I made mistakes." There are indications that fatigue and personal desires will drive about three-quarters turn over in cabinet-level officials and a few chair hoppers. Having said that, Chief of Staff Andy Card will probably leave--four years in that position is already very unusual. On the national security side, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will stay. Bush wants to keep him, and Rumsfeld is eager to finish military reform. If he does not stay for a full term, Bush will not let him go right away in order to avoid any perceptions that there are questions of leadership or policy. Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage will not be staying. The president is currently enamored with John Danforth, who is serving in the UN. He would easily be confirmed secretary of state by both Republicans and Democrats. Dr. Rice has a unique relationship with the president; she does not, however, want to stay with the NSC. The president may try to woo her with another cabinet level position, and the Department of Defense may tempt her. Steve Hadley or Robert Blackwill are both highly regarded by the president and may be options for Rice's empty chair. Whatever changes are made, there will not be a significant ideological shift.
AEI research assistant Kimberly Spears prepared this summary.
Return to the event page for How Would Each Candidate Govern?
View the summary for the John Kerry session
