In hindsight, it seems President George W. Bush’s inauguration last January was both the end of the beginning, and the beginning of the end. Four years earlier, as Bush was sworn in as president, many Americans doubted his competence, statesmanship, and ability to lead the nation. To many political foes, he was illegitimate due to his controversial victory over Al Gore. But through a combination of political acumen and luck, Bush’s political stock took a meteoric rise after Sept. 11, 2001. The good will and power accrued during the chaotic days in the wake of that event was spent to carry out his domestic and international agenda — including the notorious decision to invade Iraq — and ultimately proved sufficient to dispatch, albeit narrowly, John Kerry in the 2004 election.
But as Bush began his second term, his mastery over the political system began to wane. While scoring notable victories in Congress — on energy, transportation, and trade — he was unable to move his primary domestic agenda — immigration, tax, and Social Security reform — through the Republican-controlled Congress. Simultaneously, his foreign policy began to be questioned, especially in Iraq, which has been an albatross around the presidential neck since the “shock and awe” invasion deposed Saddam Hussein and Bush declared premature victory aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Thus, significant questions over the American political agenda had already surfaced as August began — questions which focused on Bush’s power or lack there of. Hurricane Katrina, and the abysmal response to it, put an explanation mark on a presidency adrift — gradually sliding into a prolonged lame-duck period. Katrina has done what the Democratic Party has long failed to do — shift the agenda, alter the debate, and shape the political scene to the detriment of Bush and his Republican allies in Congress.
Politically, Bush’s hesitancy in the face of Katrina resulted in a swift erosion of his already weak approval rating. The images of Bush continuing his vacation in Crawford, strumming a guitar at a political event in California, and surveying the Louisiana disaster zone from the comforts of Air Force One contrasted sharply with the images on TV screens across the country of the displaced, desperate, and dead. The utter incompetence of FEMA Director Michael Brown, who has since been sacked, added to the public relations disaster.
What is the impact? Domestically, where the focus was once on reforming entitlements and expanding tax cuts, the White House is now working doggedly to pass a massive reconstruction package for the Gulf Coast. While the details have not been hammered out, Bush’s proposal is expected to cost a whopping $200 billion — about the cost of the US war in Iraq to date. Bush’s focus on rebuilding is indeed admirable, and few question the need for prompt action to restore New Orleans, a major American city that among other things is rich in culture and critical to the oil industry.
But there is a serious concern over the size and scope of Bush’s plan. Congressional conservatives have long chaffed at Bush’s economic record, rightfully concerned over his insistence on providing the nation guns and butter that has led to record budget deficits. Republican budget hawks are insisting that any plan Bush proffers be paid for by budget cuts. “As we begin to rebuild, let us also do what every other American family would do in like circumstances and expects this Congress to do: Let’s figure out how we are going to pay for it. Congress must ensure that a catastrophe of nature does not become a catastrophe of debt for our children and grandchildren,” noted Representative Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are not concerned about the price tag. As Congressman Richard Baker of Louisiana infamously noted, “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did.” Social conservatives see opportunity in tragedy — in education, experimenting with charter schools and private school vouchers; lifting environmental restrictions and suspending labor regulations in the name of rapid construction; and, as Baker’s impolitic comment pointed out, altering public housing to alleviate poverty and crime.
In a zero-sum game of politics, Democrats have benefited from Republican shortcomings. But once again, they have failed to come up with a recovery plan of their own. Instead, the Democrats have chosen to fight over the make-up of the committee that will investigate the Katrina disaster. Fearing congressional Republicans will shift blame away from the White House, Democrats are insisting Congress create a special nonpartisan commission, and have opted to not participate in the Republican-led congressional investigation. It seems improbable that this “take my ball and go home” strategy will result in lasting political gains.
Another major repercussion of Katrina will be seen in foreign policy. Americans — and Congress — are likely to turn inward, as the storm highlighted many important issues at home — energy prices, environmental protection, the budget, poverty, and health care among them — which had largely been forgotten since Sept. 11.
The public had already grown weary of the continued chaos in Iraq, as well as the overlooked but volatile situation in Afghanistan. Pressure will grow to develop a strategy, win or lose, to get American troops out of those countries. And there is real debate as to whether the Bush administration’s ambitious democracy-building programs in the Middle East — which focus on the concept of freedom but offer no demonstrable results in the short-term — will, quite literally, weather the storm. While the rhetoric will likely survive, there is reason to believe realism will overtake idealism .
— David Dumke is Principal of the MidAmr Group.
