After narrowly surviving a hard fought battle for re-election in November, George W. Bush found himself besieged over Iraq, with little to show but chaos and mounting costs — thousands of military casualties and billions of dollars — for the US foray. Commentators of all stripes, left to right and including neoconservatives, were highlighting the alleged shortcomings of the ambitious White House plan to reshape the Middle East. Indeed, the Arab democratic domino theory, embraced by the president and envisioned by neocon stalwarts such as Paul Wolfowitz, was deemed grossly naïve, if not catastrophic. Bush was supposed to be at his political apogee, but Iraq-related complications threatened to make him a lame duck at the infancy of his second term.
Flash forward a few months, and Bush has more than rebounded, at least on the surface and in the eyes of the American press. First, Bush delivered a lofty, idealistic inaugural address, followed by a pointed State of the Union address. Both nationally televised speeches highlighted the president’s ambitious domestic and international agenda. Critics and plaudits alike pondered the feasibility of overhauling Social Security and the tax code, as others, including the influential New York Times and Washington Post, concluded his vision of democracy and reform in the Arab world was heavy on rhetoric, but light on substance. Regardless, Bush basked in the limelight, and was able to convince most that his agenda focused on serious issues that — proscribed remedy aside — needed addressing.
Employing the bully pulpit, Bush received an expected bounce in the polls. But more importantly, the president gained political capital thanks to positive coverage of the Iraqi and Palestinian elections. Subsequent events — namely the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the Saudi poll, the “Cedar revolution,” and the Egyptian decision to open up the presidential election process — appeared to legitimatize the once-discredited domino theory. Moreover, Bush’s calculated fence-mending visit to Europe not only made him look statesmanlike, but also hinted at a return to multilateral diplomacy.
Collectively, these events bolstered Bush’s political standing. After two years on the defensive, neoconservatives and other Bush allies are once again on the offensive. Bush’s mood, as witnessed at his speech to the National Defense University, is buoyant. Four years plus into his presidency, Bush has learned to a certain extent to contain his self-acknowledged cockiness. But in his latest speech, he had to work hard to contain his infamous smirk and Texas swagger.
While the newly emboldened Bush has reason to crow at his political reversal of fortunes, he would be wise to curb his enthusiasm. In truth, the White House must proceed cautiously. There are dark clouds on the horizon, both domestically and internationally, that threaten his second term.
Domestically, Bush’s proposal to revamp Social Security — arguably the most successful domestic program in history — is in peril. Most agree that the program’s long-term financial solvency is a serious concern. However, according to the latest New York Times-CBS poll, most Americans do not support the president’s idea to partially privatize the system, thereby risking guaranteed benefits. The tax reform plan seems destined to fall victim to congressional infighting and legislative paralysis. Additionally, the massive budget deficit is a lingering predicament. Republicans and Democrats alike, at the state and congressional level, are focused on deficit reduction, not tax reform. For that reason, there is also significant congressional opposition to extending the president’s tax cuts, the domestic crown jewel of his first term.
In the Arab world, a John F. Kennedy quote, which warns that those who “ride the back of the tiger end up inside,” should provide guidance. While inspiring, both the Iraqi and Palestinian elections were held under occupation, hardly an ideal environment for a healthy democracy to flourish. The Saudi elections and Egyptian reforms must also be viewed in context. Contrary to the popular American interpretation, both governments were motivated primarily by domestic considerations, not American goading. In Lebanon, the continuous rallies evoke memories of Eastern Europe. But one would be seriously remiss if they failed to recognize that few Shiites have allied with the opposition movement. Shiites are Lebanon’s largest faction. And for those hoping Bush would abandon the neocons, the appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador suggests otherwise.
In fairness, Bush’s decision to invade Iraq did shake up the region, as did the Sept.11 terrorist attacks. But it remains to be seen what will ultimately emerge in the Middle East, or whether what does will be palatable to the United States. For now, Bush should enjoy the sunshine; but he must be guarded. His decision to embrace such a broad agenda at home and abroad — an agenda over which he has only limited control — could quickly turn day into night once again.
— David Dumke is principal of the Washington-based MidAmr Group.
