Lord of the manor: why the Americans are sticking with ‘Teflon Bush’

Date: 28/11/02

By Fraser Cameron

George W. Bush went to last week's NATO summit as a President at his peak. But his administration is still negative towards the EU.

AFTER his stunning victory in the mid-term elections (and make no mistake it was his victory) President Bush was in Europe for the NATO summit last week at the zenith of his power.

At home, the Republicans control both houses while the Democrats are in disarray with conflicting and confused messages coming from a babble of candidates limbering up for the party's presidential nomination.

Abroad, the US, with its unparalleled military power, dominates the world. At Prague, Bush controlled the summit, pushing through the major decisions on enlarging NATO, the restructuring of commands and creating a 20,000 rapid response force 'to help in the war on terrorism'.

How did Bush do it? What will he do with this awesome power? Can he now achieve what his father failed to do and win re-election in 2004? Can anything possibly go wrong?

From candidate to President

It is important to recognise that Bush never wanted to become President. He never had the burning ambition that drives most politicians to stump through the snows of New Hampshire and spend weeks on the 'rubber-chicken circuit'.

Bush did not seek his party's nomination - the party sought him out as the most likely candidate to regain the White House after the 'shame' of the Clinton years.

He was perfectly content as Governor of Texas, an occupation that did not tax his intellect, nor demand difficult decisions (except for the death penalty), nor take up too much time from his favourite pursuits, jogging, chopping wood and watching baseball.

Contrary to most political pundits, Bush ran a skillful election campaign in 2000 against the more experienced Al Gore and although he lost the popular vote he gained a plurality of states and thus gained the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. During his first nine months in office, and handicapped by a Senate in Democratic hands, Bush spent much time shoring up his conservative base with massive tax cuts, increased defence spending and a blatant 'America first' approach in foreign policy.

His world, and America's world, then changed in an hour of unprecedented terror on 11 September 2001.

After a shaky first 48 hours, Bush swiftly grasped the magnitude of what had happened and rallied the country to fight the 'war on terror'. In times of crisis most Americans tend to rally round their President. Bush wrapped himself in the flag and became overnight a 'national security President'. Despite subsequent corporate scandals (Enron, Worldcom) and a stagnant economy it became impossible for the Democrats to land a clean punch, let alone a knockout blow, on the President.

During the congressional elections they led on issues such as health care, education and the environment. But Bush stomped the country, raising an unprecedented 150 million in the process, asking for the voters' support in a time of national crisis.

Without doubt he connected with most voters, drawing large crowds in the suburbs and the cities. He mobilised his party's base unlike any recent party leader and without his personal involvement it is doubtful whether the Republicans would have won back the Senate or consolidated their hold in the House of Representatives. This was a historic achievement for a first-term President whose poll ratings remain over 65%.

Priorities

Bush is now lord of the manor. There are no more excuses. The Republicans control the Senate and the House and cannot accuse the Democrats of blocking legislation, whether on home and security, tax cuts or the controversial drilling for oil in Alaska. The Republicans will also be able to push their judges through the Senate.

But what will Bush do in foreign and security policy? He has an accomplished and activist team around him - Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney - who, even if they do not always sing from the same hymn sheet, are extremely loyal to the President.

Richard Lugar takes over from Joe Biden as chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, a post he first occupied under President Ronald Reagan. Lugar is noted for his bill to provide finance to help secure 'loose nukes' in the former Soviet Union. John Warner replaces Carl Levin as chairman of the armed services committee which will mean more money for the military overall, a quickening of missile defence and the development of robot combat planes.

As Bush stated in Prague, the war on terrorism will continue to be priority number one. The administration is frustrated that they cannot find Osama bin Laden but they will not give up. Patience is one of Bush's virtues.

They will also, according to the national security doctrine, build up relations with the 'great powers'. Currently this would include Russia, China, Britain and France in the top league (with Israel a special case) and Japan, India, Mexico, Brazil in the second league. Germany has been relegated to the third division and will have to work hard for promotion to the second. It was clear at Prague that Bush has not forgiven Gerhard Schröder for his anti-American election rhetoric, despite a cordial handshake and some hamming up for the cameras. Other countries such as South Korea or Saudi Arabia may achieve temporary privileged status. A good indicator is to watch who is invited to the Bush ranch in Crawford. So far only Tony Blair, Vladimir Putin, Jiang Zemin and Crown Prince Abdullah have enjoyed the barbecue treatment.

As far as the EU is concerned the administration is likely to remain largely negative and schizophrenic. With few exceptions, such as US Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, there is little knowledge of or interest in the EU within the Bush administration.

There is slightly more knowledge of NATO but the only interest in the Alliance, despite the flowery rhetoric in Prague, is whether it can do anything useful in helping the US defeat terrorism. This means that disputes over the role of global institutions and the rule of law, as epitomised by the differences over the International Criminal Court, Kyoto and numerous arms control treaties, are likely to continue to sour relations.

There is also unlikely to be much give on the trade front. Bush's insistence on 'America first' , as seen in the steel tariffs and farm bill, paid handsome electoral dividends. Essentially the security debate in Washington will continue to be fought out between the conservatives and the neo-conservatives.

Both camps believe in unrivalled US supremacy but while the former (Powell, Rice) argue that Washington should only intervene selectively when essential interests are at stake, the latter (Rumsfeld, Cheney) argue that Washington should use its omnipotent power to effect 'regime change' wherever possible. At present the latter have been boxed in to accepting the UN path in dealing with Iraq. But they will be looking for the slightest breach of UN conditions to renew the argument for 'regime change' by force. If Bush does decide to use force, he will encounter little domestic opposition.

Six More Years?

What can the Democrats do to defeat Bush? Not much at present it seems. They cannot attack the President on national security issues without appearing unpatriotic. They cannot attack him on the economy as he argues that the war effort must take precedence. Their other issues, from health care to the environment, are drowned out by the White House spin doctors, masterminded by Karl Rove. Dick Gephardt has resigned as minority House leader and his replacement, Nancy Polosi, a liberal from California, will not find it easy to make a mark.

Meanwhile the list of potential Democrat presidential hopefuls is lengthening with Gore, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry heading the pack. Gore has not yet decided whether to run. He has name recognition, but most Democrats doubt whether he could beat Bush in a re-match of 2000. In any case it will not be before the spring of 2004 that the Democrats have a leader who can start to profile himself and the party against Bush and the Republicans.

Meanwhile can anything go wrong for the President in his quest to secure a further four years for the Bush dynasty in the White House? Another major terrorist attack in the US could damage him as could a failed Iraqi military operation. A prolonged economic downturn could also result in a slide in his popularity. But 'Teflon Bush' seems impervious to criticism. He has this inner strength as a result of not wanting the job in the first place. This fact alone will make it very difficult for anyone to defeat him in 2004. The Democrats and Europeans better get used to Texan barbecues for six more years.

• Fraser Cameron is the director of studies at the European Policy Centre. He has recently published a book on US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

Major feature analyses the rise of George W. Bush to the peak of his power, and considers the implications for transatlantic relations. Author is director of studies at the European Policy Centre.