PREMIUM SEARCH Search by job title, geography and build a list of executive contacts
Ever since he was elected in a hailstorm of dimpled chad, and with a mere 48% of the popular vote, George W. Bush has faced nagging questions about his mettle. Despite some stunning success in the fight for his big tax cut, partisan opposition to Bush has been strong, and questions about his leadership persistent.
Now, with the bloody Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on Manhattan's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush finally faces the kind of crucial test that can solidify his support with the public -- or break his Presidency. In a national address from the Oval Office the evening of the unprecedented assaults, Bush vowed to track down and retaliate against "those behind these evil acts."
An undeclared war against an invisible army of underground terrorists -- many of whom may be plotting future operations from their redoubts in the U.S. -- is not the kind of challenge that Bush sought to lend definition to his Presidency. And indeed, "victory" against entrenched commandos hardly offers the opportunity for a clear, Churchillian triumph. But now that he has been thrust into the fire, Bush has no choice: He must rise to the occasion, calm a shaken nation, summon the patience to track down the real perpetrators -- and most important, shore up America's internal defenses so a repeat of Terrible Tuesday does not occur on his watch. As Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said on Sept. 11, "Bush must come across as a strong, resolute national leader. The country must see that, and the world must see that. We cannot allow this kind of an act."
"This is an opportunity and a problem for Bush," says Stephen E. Schier, a political scientist at Carlton College in Northfield, Minn. "National security issues usually center on the President and allow him to dominate." But, adds Schier, "he also has to produce results. He has to make sure this doesn't happen again."
Though the full extent of the devastating terrorist strike isn't known yet, and casualty figures are just beginning to be tallied, here's some early analysis on how the assault will be felt in the White House and Congress:
The Capital Debate Shifts. For now, Congress will turn from the internecine budget war and related Democratic charges that Bush is about to raid the Social Security fund and focus on the war at home. "This changes the whole dynamic," says G. William Hoagland, GOP staff director of the Senate Budget Committee. "Social Security lockboxes are pretty damn meaningless in this environment." Translation: Both Republicans and Democrats now have the cover they need to let federal spending dip into Social Security this year in the name of a national emergency. And for once, the term may be accurate.
In the short run, expect Congress to focus on shifting money from some costly defense hardware to the more mundane task of beefing up domestic security. If Dems have their way, some of the shifts will come at the expense of Bush's Star Wars system, which foes say is aimed at an imaginary rogue missile threat while diverting attention from the real danger of low-tech terrorism by suicide bombers and hijackers. Says American University law professor Richard K. Goldman, a terrorism expert: "You'll see a massive increase of expenditures [for counterterrorism] programs. It's inevitable, and I think it's our duty."
Eventually, Dems and Republicans will end their truce and resume the usual skirmishes. But in the meantime, lawmakers will focus their energies on a bipartisan inquiry to answer these questions: Who's at fault for what appears at first blush like a massive intelligence failure? What do authorities need to do to shore up internal security, especially at key commercial and government installations and at U.S. airports? Is it time to take preemptive counterterrorist strikes, something the Israelis have no problem with but which U.S. officials have balked at?
End of the Checklist Presidency? Say one thing for George W. Bush -- he's a doggedly determined guy when it comes to fighting for the issues he campaigned on. While normally an admirable trait, this insistence that Congress pass every last one of his programs has led the President into neglecting the big picture. Thus, he felt free to respond to worries about a protracted recession by robotically reiterating demands that Congress enact his education-reform bill, national energy plan, and that proven recession-fighter, restoration of fast-track trade-negotiating authority.
Even before the Day of Terror, Republican political operatives were worried that this "pass my stuff -- or else" approach to governing was going to get Bush in trouble with a public that views flexibility in the face of changing circumstances as a form of realism. Bush felt the dogged approach was warranted because, to his mind, it's a counterpoint to Bill Clinton's slipperiness on matters of policy.
However, now that the earth under Bush's feet has been rocked -- both by the worrisome weakening of the U.S. economy and the renewed threat of domestic terrorism -- he has the opportunity to finally throw away his campaign script and start shaping totally new approaches to changing circumstances. To many GOP strategists, the change would come not a moment too soon.
Crash Course in Communications 101. Clinton's constant showboating in front of the national TV cameras has always grated on Bush. He believes that the President should be seen rarely and use the bully pulpit only on big occasions.
As is often he case with a new President reacting to the style of a disdained predecessor, Dubya has overdone the silent treatment, letting subordinates such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and others do too much of the talking. In theory, this has freed Bush for the inside game of lobbying lawmakers in Washington and for the out-of-town barnstorming he believes will build support for his policies in the heartland. In practice, it has raised a troubling cry: "Where was George?"
Bush's reticence in front of the TelePrompter is understandable, and for sure he'll never acquire Clinton's silky-smooth rhetorical ease. But with the nation gripped by fear and paranoia, Bush now has no choice but to regularly appear before a national TV audience to deliver crucial information to the American people. Communication skills are a vital ingredient of the modern Presidency, and Bush will just have to acquire them by becoming a regular at the Rose Garden lectern. It will be good for him -- and good for the nation, which is accustomed to seeing a leader who seems in command.
A New Focus for Foreign Policy. Up to now, Bush has had no compunctions about openly riling U.S. allies with his approach to foreign policy. By strenuously insisting that he'll pursue U.S. interests no matter what allies think, the President has come off as a Reagan-style unilateralist. In addition, Bush has gone out of his way to brush off problems in global hotspots as purely regional concerns that are of no strategic interest to the U.S.
Thus, Bush has felt free to thumb his nose at global parleys, to crash ahead with Star Wars even at the price of abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and to insist that a direct American role in the Arab-Israeli conflict is unwarranted.
Partly this stance is a result of Bush's streak of mind-your-own-business Texas populism, which appeals to the GOP Right. Partly, it may reflect his conclusion that his father's stress on weaving complex multilateral alliances takes up too much time and energy, and helps tag one with the dreaded handle of "the foreign-policy President."
Whatever his reasons, Bush no longer has the luxury of maintaining the illusion that the U.S. can decouple at will from the international system. In the future, foreign-policy experts predict, he'll be thrust much more deeply into both the Middle East cauldron and into consultations with U.S. allies -- the latter if only to shape a coordinated battle plan against terrorist havens.
Will the domestically oriented President like this new global stage? Probably not. But what's the alternative, now that the international terrorist threat has invaded U.S. shores with such ferocity?
By Lee Walczak, with Howard Gleckman and Lorraine Woellert, with bureau reports Edited by Douglas Harbrecht
Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.
Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed.
Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video.
To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here.
Copyright 2001, Bloomberg L.P.
Printer-Friendly Version
