Decoding W.
Andrea G
Moisés Naím / Foreign Policy
I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it, said President George W. Bush the day after he won a second term. But what does spending political capital mean to a reelected George W. Bush? How will he spend it? With what consequences for the United States and the world? The changes that Bush and the world experienced in the last four years provide the clues. And these clues point to the strong possibility that in his second term Bush will not try, as he did in his first four years, to radically change the world. Instead, he will try to radically change the United States.
In the last four years, the world discovered George W. Bush. And George W Bush discovered the world. And what did Bush and the world find out about each other? The U.S. president turned out to be a bigger and, at times, even more reckless gambler than anyone had expected. The world thought W was a status quo conservative. He turned out to be a radical bent on changing everything. The world expected that, given his limited previous interest in international affairs, Bush would adopt the humble foreign policy he promised in his 2000 campaign. Instead, he adopted a very aggressive foreign policy. He said he was a uniter, not a divider. But a more united country or a less anti-American world is surely not what we see today. Despite the controversial way in which he conquered the presidency in 2000, he governed as if the majority of Americans who voted against him were a fringe group undeserving of any influence. His boldness and ambitions seemed boundless.
In this context, Osama bin Laden was of immense help. The September 11 terrorist attacks gave President Bush the blank political, military, and fiscal check that allowed him to pursue his ambitious goals almost undeterred. And with that blank check in hand, he tried to reach for the moonwhich, in terms of foreign policy, meant setting out to reconfigure the Middle East. Ousting Saddam Hussein from Iraq and implanting a democratic regime that shared American values would just be the beginning. Spreading democracy to other Arab lands (in fact, to as many foreign lands as possible) was the immodest goal that President Bush and his government adopted as a central organizing principle. Fighting and winning the GWOT was the other central theme. GWOT of course is the acronym that insiders or those that want to be perceived as such use to refer to the global war on terror. And all this could be done with or without allies.
Inevitably, Bush was equally surprised by the world he discovered. The powerful U.S. military was a far less effective tool for transforming the world than he anticipated. It was designed to fight other armies, not faceless, stateless, suicidal insurgents. Preemptive war consumed more U.S. lives and money than he promised to the American public, and what his advisors promised him. Allies were not as useless as he originally assumed. Without allies, exiting Iraq, stopping Irans nuclear weapons program, keeping North Korea in check, rebuilding Afghanistan, pushing global trade rounds, stabilizing the world economy, fighting terrorismeven catching bin Ladenwould be impossible. Also, sticking to the preemptive war doctrine is proving to be very difficult. The U.S. military is stretched to its limits in terms of personnel, equipment, and budgets. The U.S. intelligence apparatusan indispensable tool to justify preemptive waris in disarray, suffering from low morale and damaged credibility. Launching another large-scale expeditionary war against another nation based on the suspicion that it could attack the United States is going to be harder to justify in the future. Very likely, another war will be fought only if the United States is attacked by a clearly identifiable enemy nation. Yes, President Bush now knows from experience that the world is too complicated and perhaps intractable to the simple, bold, sweeping changes that he envisions.
But ambition is inbred and a hunger for history is addictive. President Bush has both. Moreover, he won reelection to his second term as president by a wider margin than in 2000. He received more votes than any previous U.S. president. He made gains in key groups: Greater percentages of Hispanics, blacks, and women voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000. His party widened its majority in congress. One or more of the Supreme Court justices will soon retire, presenting the president with an opportunity to appoint judges that share his cultural and religious leanings. Although the election was not decided by any single factor, religion, abortion, gay marriage, civil liberties, and many other such themes have been brought to the forefront of the national conversation. Can Bush afford to leave these contentious domestic issues untouched? Of course not. That is why in his second term Bush will more likely spend his political capital in reconfiguring the United States than in reconfiguring the world.
His emphasis on an aggressive domestic agenda is already apparent. Changing social security and the tax laws have become constant themes in the administrations messages. Other code words are also beginning to make frequent appearances: creating an ownership society and moving the country toward a culture of life are alluring references to initiatives that will unleash furious political battles in the United States. What the president has in mind when he talks about an ownership society is a profound transformation of the ways Americans get retirement benefits, pension payments, healthcare, and various other forms of social protection. A culture of life translates into making abortions more difficult, perhaps even impossible. According to pro-choice organizations, the majority of Republicans, who occupy 55 out of 100 U.S. Senate seats, are against abortion rights. Pro-choice organizations also expect a battle in the Supreme Court. And homosexuals are gearing up to fight against a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Another important and less-known euphemism is starving the beast. This idea stipulates that the only way to drastically reduce the size of government is to create a massive fiscal crisisallowing deficits to soar by cutting taxes and not curbing expendituresthat leaves no other choice but to close down entire government agencies and completely eliminate public spending programs. Some observers argue that this explanation is why Bush, known for his aggressive, bold stance in almost all areas of governing, has been so timid in his efforts to cut public spending.
However, history shows that the world does not allow U.S. presidents to ignore what happens beyond the waters edge. Unexpected emergencies abroad routinely derail domestic agendas. In preparation for that eventuality, President Bush is already using another code word: international cooperation. On Dec. 2, 2004, the front page of the Washington Post carried a large picture of President Bush during his first visit to Canada. The caption of the picture read: Bush outlined a second-term foreign policy that would make international cooperation his administrations top priority. But, lest anyone get the idea that this signaled a major change for George W. Bush, the text then continued: but the president made clear that such cooperation must occur on his terms.