The Year of Living Dangerously
George Bush's 2003 agenda is chock full of both risks and opportunities
President Bush was greeting well-wishers at a reception in Boston just a few weeks ago when a woman burst into tears as he shook her hand. It turned out that her son had abruptly dropped out of Harvard and joined the military, partly in response to the president's summoning of Americans to a new era of public service and patriotism. The mother tearfully told the commander in chief of her pride in the son's selflessness. Later, Bush told aides it was one more sign that Americans were "heeding the call."
Such altruism is gratifying to any political leader. But the incident also had a more practical resonance for Bush, providing a vivid reminder of how deeply a president can reach into everyday people's lives. It's a part of the job that this president savors, and that's fortunate, given his calendar; Bush's agenda for 2003 is bigger, bolder, and riskier than ever before, and the stakes are much higher, both here and abroad. In his State of the Union address January 28, the president will make just this point as he unveils initiatives on issues ranging from prescription drugs for seniors to encouraging good works by "faith-based" organizations. Last week, Bush proposed an unexpectedly large $674 billion, 10-year economic plan (analysis, Page 21). And of course, there's the matter of Iraq--and now, North Korea.
The third year of any first-term president often solidifies public impressions and frames the debate for his re-election campaign. Bill Clinton used his third year, in 1995, to become an effective counterweight to the growing conservatism among congressional Republicans. That set the stage for his re-election in 1996. George H. W. Bush used the start of his third year, in 1991, to win the Persian Gulf War but frittered away his popularity by failing to boldly address a sharp recession. He lost in 1992.
Similarly, 2003 is unfolding as George W. Bush's year of living dangerously. "It will be pivotal," says Rutgers political scientist Ross K. Baker, " . . . because of the confluence of momentous events." Adds Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg: "President Bush is going to move pretty quickly into a rocky period."
Full plate. But Matthew Dowd, polling coordinator for the White House, sees it differently, speaking instead of the public's "feeling of anticipation." Dowd told U.S. News that Bush's third year is important "because of the legislative agenda. . . . The president has gotten himself in a position where he can get things done in Washington, and the public wants him to do that."
But with that power come pitfalls; his economic blueprint is a case in point. The critics say the Bush plan is proof that his sympathies lie with corporate allies and fat-cat friends, while the middle class and the poor get leftovers. Theoretically, the plan needs some moderate Democrats to pass, since 60 votes are required to cut off debate, and Republicans lead the Senate only by 51 to 49. But Republicans may get around the 60-vote requirement by attaching the plan to a budget bill, which operates under different rules. That maneuver would only further polarize the issue; Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle called the package "obscene." All this sets the stage for a major campaign debate over social equity in 2004.
advertisement
