WASHINGTON — George W. Bush is in trouble. This is not wishful thinking on the part of Europeans who cannot abide a man they see as a trigger-happy, unilateralist half-wit. It is a sober assessment of the 43rd president’s political standing at home on the day he delivers what is surely one of the most important State of the Union messages in modern times.
Only ten weeks ago, Bush’s prestige was at its height — higher in many respects even than in the aftermath of Sept. 11. His personal campaigning had made the difference in securing absolute Republican control of Congress at November’s mid-term elections. Cowed by fear of his popularity, Democrats in Senate and House alike helped grant him a virtual carte blanche in dealing with Iraq.
Today cracks have appeared in the seemingly impregnable facade. Not gaping cracks to be sure, but ones that, if not swiftly repaired, could yet bring down the entire Bush edifice. They are visible in tumbling consumer confidence, the Trent Lott affair which tarred the Republicans’ image on race, the growing unease at the prospect of war in the Gulf — and in the polls.
Not a ruling politician on earth of course admits he will allow polls to influence his unswerving, high-minded pursuit of the national good. But this White House — the smoothest working, most efficient and most secretive in recent memory, pays as much attention to them as its predecessors. The indications are not good.
Bush’s approval ratings have slipped to the mid-50s — respectable enough for a President in normal times half way through his term. But they have dipped 10 percent since the mid terms, bringing his popularity back to the levels before the 2001 terrorist attacks.
A majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of the faltering US economy, the pocket book issue that over the longer term will eclipse even Iraq as a priority for voters. Over 1.5 million jobs have been lost on this Bush’s watch. On Iraq, American public opinion is increasingly resembling that of the despised wimps in ‘old Europe.’ No less than seven out of ten believe that United Nations inspectors should be given "months" or more to complete their work.
The country, according to one finding Monday, is split down the middle when asked whether it trusts the president or the UN to make the right decisions on Iraq. Though 60 percent broadly support military action against Iraq, Newsweek found that backing plummets if the US were to act alone, or with the backing of just "one or two" allies.
This is the public mood Bush must turn around in his hour-long address to the Senate, House and a mass of other dignitaries. Hans Blix’ report to the Council Monday that Baghdad was not co-operating on the "substance" of the demands of resolution 1441 may help him. But he still has to make the case that Saddam Hussein poses a real and immediate threat, and spell out America’s responsibilities post-Saddam: Not least the cost of reconstruction, much of which will be borne by Washington, probably for years.
There will be no declaration of war tonight, the White House assures, nor a specific date for Iraqi compliance. But nor is there likely to be the detailed proof of banned Iraqi weapons programs that opinion, at home as well as abroad, demand.
And Iraq is not the only battleground. Bush must defend his $670 billion economic stimulus package, centred on the abolition of taxes on dividends.
No amount of White House spin can hide the fact the package is heavily tilted towards the rich. If small-government, tax-hating Conservative true believers love the proposals, the country is unconvinced.
The package has no chance of emerging in anything like its present form.
Sensing Bush’s vulnerability, Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leaders in Senate and House respectively, Monday made a new pitch for their party’s quick acting $130 billion package, explicitly targeted to the less well off.
Bush’s underlying problem is that he is trying to achieve two goals which ultimately are irreconcilable: To unite a sceptical country behind him in launching an unprovoked war, and yet pursue nakedly partisan domestic policies — not just over the economy. Bush wants to further privatise healthcare, one-day even social security. He seems oblivious to the collapse of US public finances, from a federal surplus of $250 billion two years ago, to a similar deficit this year.
"You’ve got to tend the garden," Colin Powell said the other day, apropos of America’s dealings with its allies. He was quoting a dictum of George Shultz, Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan — the President with whom George Bush is often compared in both style and policies. Bush has not done that. He is paying the price in the charges of arrogance and in the widespread personal dislike he inspires abroad. But he has also failed to tend the garden at home.
The Democrats are furious about having been taken for a ride. Having given the President their backing over Iraq, runs their version of recent American history, they saw Bush throw it back in their faces -using the national security issue to beat his opponents, implying that any Democrat who questioned the merest sliver of his policy was unpatriotic.
Of course, polls should not be taken as gospel. If Bush does choose war, even alone or virtually alone, and without specific UN Security Council approval, the country will rally behind him. The polls that matter are the ones after war, not before it. Only if things go wrong will public opinion turn against him. Even then an upturn in the economy could change every calculation.
If Saddam is speedily and comprehensively defeated, and American casualties are few, Bush will bask in a victor’s acclaim. But that is scant comfort.
Twelve years ago exactly that happened when his father put together a far wider coalition than any that is likely to be formed this time, to drive Iraq from Kuwait. Barely 12 months later Bush Senior lost the presidential election. (The Independent)
— Arab News Features 29 January 2003