Down but not out

The remaining two years of Bush’s term

By Tommy Owens
From the December 2006 Print Edition

It can be said that voters rejected the current Bush administration policy on Iraq in the November 2006 election. It cannot be said, however, that voters have rejected George W. Bush and his entire domestic or foreign policy. Bush took a heavy loss (29 House Republicans, 6 GOP senators) on November 7, but political scientists and historians looking to forever write off Bush as a political force had better save their breath until January 2009. There are many dangerous liabilities the president and vice president must grapple with in the coming two years, but with hard work and a bit of luck, they can be overcome.

The new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has the potential to strengthen Coalition prospects of victory in Iraq. Now that midterm elections are over, the Pentagon will probably concentrate less on U.S. troop pullouts and more on building up the Iraqi Defense Forces and the local police agencies. Victory in Iraq, which is defined by having a democratic, stable, and inclusive Iraqi government, is still very possible, despite the enormous violence plaguing the 30-mile radius surrounding Baghdad. Good relations between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki will be critical to achieving victory. Bush should make it clear the United States will not abandon this outpost of democracy on his watch.

Bush’s relations with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will also be another topic of interest in the coming two years. Reid and Pelosi have the power to grind Bush’s conservative legislation (tax cuts and pro-life policies, for example) to a halt, but not totally override his actions. If, for instance, Bush vetoes a ludicrous spending bill, congressional Democrats will be hard-pressed to find the two-thirds majority in both houses to override that veto. The 2006 midterm elections have severely wounded the chance conservative bills will reach Bush’s desk, but have not opened the door for leftward legislation.

Bush’s Supreme Court nominations, for example, are in no more danger in the 110th Congress than they were in the 109th. Though Republicans occupy only 49 of the Senate’s 100 seats, not all of the Democratic caucus is made of Ted Kennedy-caliber liberals. On the contrary, many of the Democratic senators elected in November 2006 (Joe Lieberman, Jim Webb, Bob Casey, Ben Nelson, for example) are somewhat socially conservative. They would likely vote for a Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Samuel Alito or John Roberts — giving Bush a confirmation majority, albeit somewhat slimmer.

If Bush abandons his strategy of long-term, massive overhauls of government policy (Social Security, immigration, fundamental tax reform) and concentrates instead on short-term legislative victories, his poll-ratings will skyrocket. Americans will see him as bipartisan again, as he was during his support of No Child Left Behind and the days following September 11. Simply look at how far Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has come from 2005, when his initiatives failed miserably, to 2006, when he was re-elected by a substantial majority. Schwarzenegger governed from the middle. He took away key issues, such as environmentalism, from the core of his opposition. If Bush lobbied for a clean-energy initiative, more educational funding, or a large government audit, it would prove to both Bush’s supporters and detractors that he is more concerned with the welfare of America’s taxpayers and families than he is with enacting his more divisive, albeit beneficial, legislation.

But there is one piece of bad news for the remainder of Bush’s term. Speaker Pelosi will try to make the most of her newly elected position by uniting moderate and liberal Democrats in highly televised and quite distracting investigations. Liberals are overjoyed that one of their own is now speaker. They will call for her to investigate and perhaps even impeach the president should government policy constitute what they would consider a "scandal." Just imagine if the SWIFT financial tracking program or the NSA wiretap leaks broke when Democrats had control of the various House committees.

Bush and his advisers should try to concentrate on the historical legacy which "Dubya" has brought to Washington. If he fails in Iraq, his historical legacy will rank with that of Lyndon B. Johnson. If he succeeds, he will be remembered as a Harry Truman — a president who did not back down from bearing enormous costs, because he believed there was a greater struggle than just the one being fought on the battlefield.

The Korean War involved the South Korean people’s desire to live free of Communism. Iraq, similarly, involves the desire of the 12 million people who voted in December 2005 to live in a democratic, stable society. The latter is a struggle between democracy and radically misguided Islamic extremists. Bush would both improve his poll numbers and his historical legacy by doing all he can to win this conflict — one that will define America for longer than the tenure of a two-term presidency.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot