July 2005

How Is Bush Governing in His Second Term?

As part of a discussion series dedicated to analyzing President George W. Bush's presidency and governing style, panelists discussed the following questions at a July 12 AEI conference: How is he governing? What are his prospects for a successful second term? Is he a lame duck? How are his relations with Congress? Are his fortunes tied to our success in Iraq? How is his domestic agenda--in particular his Social Security and tax reform plans--faring? How does President Bush compare to other second-term presidents? What will his legacy be?

David Ranger
New York Times

President Bush’s first-term agenda focused on foreign policy after the 9/11 attacks. However, his shift to counterterrorism in Iraq moved him from the offensive to the defensive, as he had to then explain his action’s rationale. Bush’s second term consists of his reparation of what he had already created in his first term. However, he had a separate agenda for the second term to repair his international relationships. Thus far Bush has taken four trips to Europe and moved Condoleezza Rice into a position to speak for his administration. Now in his second term, Bush faces two countries worse than Iraq in their production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--Iran and North Korea. However, his resources are stretched too thin, and he does not have any international slack. In this way Bush is not in control of his intended agenda. We learned during the G-8 summit that Bush still remains fundamentally divided with his allies on key issues outside of terrorism and has made little effort to patch up the differences.

Bush’s second term is about spreading democracy, something he talked almost nothing about during his first term. Bush is in favor of nation building and probably sees Iraq in the framework of the Marshall Plan. This democratic theme is sellable and appeals to the American sense of optimism; however, he has very little control over the results of nation building. Bush has little control over countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which he cares about most. Subsequently, his administration has aimed to merge the NSC and the State Department or order to maintain better control.

Bush has justified his foreign policy by saying he has not forgotten the events that spurred the counterterrorism effort. However, people have begun to think less of 9/11 and more on the war with Iraq. Democrats continually try to get the president to set a metric about when he will pull the troops from Iraq. The president will not do that; he will leave when he believes that it is time.

David Gergen
U.S. News and World Report

Governing during second terms is usually less successful than during first terms. Almost all presidents have suffered from a poor second term, this ranges from George Washington through every great and even less well-known president. Usually the second term is focused on some sort of scandal, such as Iran-Contra during Reagan and Monica Lewinsky during Clinton. Currently, Bush is in reactive mode and may overlook opportunities present before him. His second term may indeed join the pantheon of unmemorable second terms.

A major issue for second-term presidents is their reputation overseas. Favorable international relations will buy a president time before he is pulled into domestic and internal strife. The London bombings strengthened President Bush’s message and bought more time in Iraq. The stakes are higher with Iraq than they were in Vietnam for our national security, and thus we can all benefit from this extra time.

As for the Supreme Court nomination, I believe it is easier to get one through rather than two. If Bush has a tough fight, it will strengthen his presidency. If he has two nominations to make, he must make a very important choice. To nominate a moderate like Gonzales would reach out to the Latino community and contribute to his political legacy. However, this choice would upset the conservative base that wants two conservatives nominated. He will probably nominate two conservatives because that will bring change to the Court, and that is fundamentally what Bush is about.

The issue of Karl Rove is a political problem rather than a criminal problem. This is nothing close to the scenario of Iran-Contra or Lewinsky. Based on our current knowledge, there is no evidence that Rove broke the law. Staffers in the White House do not know if CIA operatives are covert or not. Unless Rove lied, and he is too smart to do that, he does not have a problem. Press Secretary Scott McClellan may have a problem for claiming Rove was not involved, if indeed he was. This situation will not require Rove’s resignation.

Dan Balz
Washington Post

Bush had a seven-point higher approval rating at this point of his presidency during his first term. He had recently passed tax and education reforms that increased his popularity. However, his second term has lacked these successful initiatives and has followed the pattern of difficult second terms. Bush’s style and the political climate have probably been the cause of this. This president did not receive a honeymoon even though the 2004 election gave him a wider electoral and popular victory. The Bush administration had hoped to unite the country, however it remains more divided and thus less easily governed.

Democrats decided to be united in opposition to his second-term priorities, like Social Security. Democrats came out of the 2004 election with a different frame of mind; any cooperation evident during Bush’s first term has evaporated at this point. This is probably due to the fact that Bush is a consequential leader. He has a bold agenda with Social Security being one of his most divisive domestic issues. In addition, his administration did not lay the necessary groundwork for the agenda and is now paying a price for it.  There is also increased splintering of the Republican coalition. During Bush’s first term, he maintained a tight and efficient political operation that kept his conservative base content. However, he has not been as successful during his second term. As we near the 2006 elections, members of Congress will stand by the president’s resolve less as they fear losing in upcoming election.

The Bush-Rove political process has changed the Republican Party. This continues to animate their operation. The strange paradox of President Bush is that he is a divider, not a “uniter,” even though he continues to enlarge the Republican coalition.

As for the Supreme Court nomination, the Bush administration was not prepared for Justice O’Connor’s resignation. Bush has not candidly displayed his opinions on certain deep personal issues, thus it will be difficult to gauge his judicial priorities.

Karl Rove filled a domestic policy vacuum in the wake of John Bolton’s delayed nomination. He has fused domestic substance and the political agenda together. With Ken Mehlman’s involvement in the situation, it has pitted the Republican National Committee against the congressional Democrats.

Overall, Bush’s second term has suffered due to external forces. Public opinion is ambivalent on what to do now with Iraq. The president must decide how to manage the public and the war while we are currently in it.

Norman J. Ornstein
AEI

There are a few characteristics of second-term presidents that we assume have already had successful first terms. For example, there is usually a loss of energy, a lack of new ideas while they try to preserve what they already have done, more scandals, more ideology, and more divisions within their own party. Bush has successfully brought in cabinet members together in a specific way to shape his administration. The policy from this administration has affected a wide variety of interests, from the business community to environment and domestic policy.

Presidents usually have an eighteen-month window to make changes. The president will thus delay making his judicial nominees and try and move forward other issues on his agenda. With the possibility of two vacancies, Bush has the opportunity to pick individuals that will satisfy both his own party and the moderates. The issue of judicial nominations can create a greater partisan schism and thus negatively influence Iraq and other foreign policy. There are different people that could garner a greater or lesser percentage of the Senate vote. Alberto Gonzales, for example, could obtain about seventy-five percent of the votes. Bush has choices and must decide how much of a fight he is willing to make.  Altogether, Bush will nominate a conservative. His actions in Texas show he will do this. There are some conservatives, however, that will not create a political firestorm among Democrats. Most likely though, Bush will nominate someone that will create a huge issue among Democrats.

The situation with Karl Rove is completely different than Clinton’s scandal. Rove has an unprecedented role within the White House; he is a genuine policy wonk. While speaking with him, I could comprehend his detailed knowledge about policy. Since the president moved his close allies into the cabinet, Rove fills the vacancy as a close adviser. However, if Rove is crippled by this investigation, it will present an immense problem for the president and his planned domestic agenda.
 
The 2006 election might find the Democrats gaining twenty seats and taking the majority. This, however, would take a set of circumstances like that of a perfect storm, and I just do not see that happening. If I were Bush, I would want the Democrats to gain eight or nine seats in the House and two to three in the Senate. In this case, they would not have the ability to govern, but Bush could share blame across both parties. Republicans have a lot to deal with right now. First, they must try to unite a much divided Republican Party. Second, they face nervousness with the upcoming election. 

There has been a growth of misusage of unnamed sources throughout the years. There are limits when you take information and when you use it. I was appalled when I saw leaks coming from independent counsel during the Clinton administration to manipulate political processes. There should be limits on leaks that are used. Although she did not write a story, Judith Miller is unfortunately paying the price for the sins of others. I hope, however, this will bring self-examination on how far we should go in using unnamed sources.

AEI intern Emily McClintock prepared this summary.