Fear made George Bush’s presidency, gave him his “mission”, and allowed him to remain in office. Before Sept. 11, he had drifted to the lowest approval rating ever for a president after just eight months on the job. Throughout the 2004 campaign, Republicans hammered “September 11”, “terrorism” and “Saddam Hussein” like an anvil chorus. Bush got his victory; it was the smallest win of any second-term president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916, but he acts as if it is the moment of deliverance Republicans have been waiting for since Herbert Hoover lost the White House.
Fear fostered Bush’s “political capital”, so he sees no reason why it should fail him now. His attempt to transfer fear from the war on terrorism to the war on the New Deal may not be confusing to him, but the truth is that only fear generated in foreign policy has protected him politically from his unpopular positions on domestic issues. Since Sept. 11, without variation, Bush’s poll numbers have paralleled the quantity of news stories about terrorism. The more terrorism dominates the media, the higher his ratings; and whenever terrorism declines, he begins to sink. The war on terrorism is his meta-narrative. But what happens when the ground shifts?
In the Middle East, the Israelis and Palestinians have declared a cease-fire. The progress of negotiations will depend in large part on an increased US role as the chief broker. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Paris, declared: “It is time to turn away from the disagreements of the past.” But whose past did she mean? Her next statement gave the answer: “The key to our future success lies in getting beyond a partner based on common threats, and building an even stronger partnership based on common opportunities, even those beyond the transatlantic community.” Rice’s pronouncement is nothing less than a break with Bush’s threat-based approach. Without ambiguity or nuance, she said US foreign policy must now be rooted, not in the war on terrorism, but in “opportunities”. While Rice was on her grand tour, Bush rushed from his State of the Union address to rallies in the west and south to stump for social security privatization. Despite research by the social security actuary and the Congressional Budget Office to the contrary, he insists the system is collapsing. As he jetted across the US, Republican congressmen and senators either announced their opposition or reserved judgment. At his rallies, the crowds cheered his words against terrorism as though it were a nostalgic re-enactment of his campaign, and then fell into befuddled silence.
His convoluted explanations on social security were so confusing that Bush confessed: “Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the ... like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate ... the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those ... if that growth is affected, it will help on the red. OK, better? I’ll keep working on it.” A week after the address, the White House has admitted it has no timetable for proposing a plan. The urgent centerpiece of Bush’s second term is indefinitely on hold. Bush’s gibberish on social security is not the symptom of a man without qualities. Bush can be articulate, a master of his talking points and highly focused. His inability so far to sell his latest case of fear, however, may presage growing political incoherence.
The momentum of events, abroad and at home, has carried him to an unknown place, where complication may ambush him at every turn. The consequences of George Bush are the greatest threat to George Bush.
