In the end, even the most partisan Democrats were not surprised at the outcome of the recent US presidential elections. Not only did Bush win, but the Republican Party picked up a handful of seats in the Senate and House. Post-election analysts declared the outcome a decisive Republican victory which revealed a clear picture of where the country stood on Bush and his policies. True, it was a good day for the Republicans. But a sweeping mandate it was not.

A recent poll conducted for the New York Times and CBS News bares close examination, for it reveals little public support for Bush’s policies. The findings include:

• Only 40 percent of Americans feel the country is on the “right track.”

• 52 percent of Americans are uneasy about George W. Bush’s approach to the economy, with 64 percent feeling Bush’s tax cuts — his key economic program — have had no impact or been harmful.

• A clear majority do not believe the “gay marriage” issue is important enough to amend the US Constitution.

• 47 percent have confidence in Bush’s ability to handle an international crisis.

• Just 40 percent support the administration’s handling of Iraq, with 48 percent feeling invading Iraq was the wrong decision.

These results do not give credence to the idea of a mandate. In fact, they open many questions as to how Bush managed to win, and what that victory actually means. Commentators are now trying to decipher the meaning of the changes in the Bush Cabinet. Does this mean a second Bush term is a continuation of all Bush policies domestic and foreign for another four years? Does it mean a return to realism on the international scene, or relative moderation on the domestic scene?

Of course, the foreign policy questions are most often debated, and also the most difficult to answer. After four years in the limelight as national security advisor, few people actually know what makes Condoleezza Rice tick. At times she has been branded a hawk and ally of the Pentagon neoconservatives. Others have said she is an internationalist who often sided with Colin Powell. But for all the talk, Rice is still a Sphinx, open for interpretation with evidence available to prove or disprove any theory. Regardless, three factors should be kept in mind when projecting US foreign policy in the second Bush term: Rice and her relationship with Bush, the traditional power of the secretary of state vis-à-vis the national security advisor, and Bush’s political parameters internationally and domestically.

Rice is not a necessarily a committed internationalist like a Kerry appointee would likely have been, but she is also, for all her reported hawkish leaning, not a “neocon.” Rather, both her academic work and anecdotal evidence suggests she is a realist who, while aggressively working on behalf of US interests, understands the necessity of working with the international community, including players who may or may not have similar interests. Rice is also close to the president on a personal and professional level; she is a Bush confidant. Colin Powell, a national hero since the Gulf War in 1991, was his own man before entering the Bush administration, and never really connected with the president.

As Powell has once again demonstrated, in recent years the power of the secretary of state has been limited. With the exception of James Baker, national security advisors have been more influential on foreign policy decisions at least since Richard Nixon. Henry Kissinger undercut Secretary of State William Rogers so often the latter eventually resigned, and Kissinger took over both jobs simultaneously. Proximity to the president best explains the NSA’s edge over State. But because of her relationship with Bush, Rice could overcome the proximity challenge faced by her predecessors. The fact that her deputy, Stephen Hadley, will fill her shoes at NSA strengthens her position.

Finally, Bush may not face election-related pressure, but he does face reality. He will have to work with the international community on issues such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, the peace process, and North Korea not necessarily because he prefers to, but because realistically the US needs assistance from international bodies and allies to manage each problem. US forces are overextended, which limits military options. The US budget is in record deficit, limiting economic options. Arguably, US influence in the Middle East has been diminished, and is lacking with the government of North Korea. Domestically, Bush has won re-election, but the extent of his mandate — and the meaning of his victory — are open to interpretation.

— David Dumke is the CEO of the American Middle East Information Network and Principal of the MidAmr Group.