www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-bush1nov01,0,6861797.story
If elections were solely a job performance review, President George W Bu sh would lose in a landslide. He has been a reckless steward of the nati on's finances and its environment, a divisive figure at home and abroad. It's fair to say that Bush has devalued the American brand in the globa l marketplace. What keeps this a close race is voter discomfort with Sen. John F Kerry and the success of Republicans in stoking concerns about Kerry's fitness for office. But the thrust of the Bush campaign message essentially, you are stuck with me in this frightful time because the other guy is to o unreliable is a tacit acknowledgment that he can't allow the electio n to be a referendum on his record. Bush says John Kerry is ill suited to lead American troops and allies in Iraq, given the senator's doubts about the wisdom of going to war there in the first place. The president's strongest moments during the debates came when he pressed this line of attack that you can't succeed in a mission you don't believe in. Kerry missed a golden opportunity to turn such reasoning to his advantage, for if there is an overarching theme to the Bush failure as president, it's his inherent disdain for the role o f the federal government and for the very act of governing. The mission of the presidency is not one Bush believes in. Though he may see himself as the man chosen by a higher authority to protect the nation, Bush spe nds a lot of time bashing Washington and, by extension, the government h e leads. Try to imagine Franklin D Roosevelt being so disdainful of government wh ile trying to rally the nation during World War II. Nor would it have worked if he had starved the Treasury of the reso urces needed to accomplish the mission. That is what Bush has done with his reckless tax cuts and unabated domestic spending. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the White House initially opposed the move to federalize airport security. Bush was also against creating the Department of Homeland Security, until he realized he was g oing to lose that fight too. Bush's disdain for Washington may be one reason he has been so cavalier a bout his duty to keep the government's finances in order. The Bush years have been a Vegas-style all-you-can-eat buffet for special and not-so-s pecial interests. He is the first president in more than a century not t o veto a single piece of legislation, and in the ensuing anything-goes e nvironment, even recent legislation meant to end export subsidies declar ed illegal by the World Trade Organization somehow degenerated into a $1 40-billion corporate welfare program. The administration's cynicism was also apparent in its abandonment of its avowed free-market principles when politically expedient, as when Bush imposed tariffs on imported steel, or when he signed a farm bill that th reatens to derail efforts to liberalize global trade. Bush's lack of seriousness and his stubborn refusal to alter course in the face of altered circumstance explains his administration's notorio us hostility toward expertise of all kinds. Whether it is his own Treasu ry secretary telling him his tax cuts are no longer affordable, intellig ence analysts raising doubts about a supposed Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein ti e, or his proconsul in Iraq clamoring for more ground troops, Bush has a way of freezing out expertise he deems inconvenient. The terribly botch ed occupation of Iraq and the lost opportunity it represents according to the president's own assessment of the stakes in that conflict is t he price the United States pays for its president's obstinacy. His candidacy was all about downsiz ing the office of the presidency, the federal government and the America n role in the world. Bush ran as the good-natured, back-slapping governo r of Texas whose only worry in life seemed to be the prospect of all tha t surplus taxpayer money stashed away in Washington, getting wasted on s uch frivolities as Medicare and Social Security reform. He promised to c urtail the regulatory state at home and promote a more humble foreign po licy abroad. He was harshly critical of Clinton-era nation-building over seas and treated diplomacy as a nuisance once in office. It's unfair to blame Bush for not being able to get France to join the co alition of the willing, but it's proper to point out that from early on this administration antagonized much of the world with its haughty dismi ssal of diplomatic efforts to combat global warming and weapons prolifer ation. It's no surprise that a presidency designed for a world of easy prosperit y at home and quiet overseas would struggle to meet the challenges of th e last few years. Now, once again, the nation faces the possibility of a presidential elect ion whose margin of error might exceed the margin of victory. The first President Bush was a better president than his son, but it's George W B ush who stands a chance of being the first member of the Bush dynasty to become a two-term president. That's because he is a more effective camp aigner than his father, the post 9/11 electorate (though not happy with the status quo) is understandably risk-averse, and Kerry is no Bill Clin ton. All along, this President Bush is one a solid majority of Americans wante d to like and wanted to rally around, but it's his record that gets in t he way of a reelection waltz akin to that of Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Cl inton in 1996. the country is not immutably loc ked into a 50-50 blue-red divide. It's the failure of the Bush presidenc y that has led us back here. If he ekes out a victory, George W Bush should think long and hard as to why the outcome was ever in doubt. That could help him be a better pres ident the second time around, if he gets the chance.
|
http://csua.com/feed/