We should know him by now, shouldn’t we? This week George W Bush will be inaugurated for a second term as president, but the occasion, far from being an unqualified triumph, will be a reflection of the American public’s ambivalence towards the man and his record. Bush’s re-election margin, remember, was 3%. Ronald Reagan’s was 18%. Bill Clinton’s was a solid 8%.
Yes, the Republicans eked out stronger majorities in House and Senate but only by increments. The president’s approval ratings are still below 50%, rare for a re-elected president. The public is increasingly sceptical of his signature foreign policy initiative, the war in Iraq. His second-term domestic agenda — social security, meaning pension privatisation — has a long way to go before it wins congressional backing.
To his supporters Bush is a “transformational” president. They believe he is the architect of a domestic political realignment, making the Republicans the natural party of government for a generation. He is the spear-point of a spiritual reawakening in which the fusion of evangelical Christianity and political activism will make America even more exceptional in the western world.
They hope that he will lead to the banning of abortion and legal protection for gay relationships, the decline of divorce and the resurgence of candid religious symbolism in the public square. In foreign affairs they see him moving the United States away from subservience to the United Nations and towards a democratic revolution in the Middle East. It may be hard to find a handful of writers on the East Coast who accept his bona fides, but in the heartland, his sentiments and his powerful personal connection still endure.
To his many foes Bush is, in the words of one dyspeptic columnist, “the worst president in American history”. There are swathes of blue America where even a debate about Bush’s qualities would be dismissed as insane. He is, they insist, a man who has waged unnecessary wars, has undermined civil liberties, bankrupted the government, rewarded the rich at the expense of the poor and been a disaster for the environment.
They see him now less as stupid (always a stupid judgment) and more as dangerously glib and uninvolved in his government, delegating the real decisions to Dick Cheney, the vice-president, rewarding failure as long as it is synonymous with loyalty and eroding the vital distinction between religion and politics.
Both these narratives cannot be true. I remain somewhere in the middle. I’ve long admired Bush’s recognition of the life-and-death struggle against Islamist fascism as the central task of his presidency. It’s hard not to value his grit in pursuing what will eventually be regarded as critical wars in the defence of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
The president comes across as a genuinely kind and warm man, of solid values and clear objectives. His reduction of the American tax burden probably saved the world from a devastating depression. The US economy is growing at a faster pace than its major rivals and looks set to continue that way. Since 9/11, America has not suffered any equivalent attack. That is something I never expected. No, it wasn’t all his doing. But he would have been blamed had another attack destroyed a US city.
Why should he not garner some praise for it? Fair’s fair.
But his failures are glaring. There are huge trade and budget deficits that he has no convincing plan to reduce. By massive increases in government spending he has ensured that the current tax cuts will eventually be turned into big tax rises.
It is now clear that he went to war in Iraq without any serious plan for occupying the country after toppling Saddam Hussein — an astonishingly reckless move. His choice to build a narrow majority by inflaming religious passion has divided America, possibly irreparably. Only last week he told a newspaper: “I cannot imagine how anyone can be president without a relationship with the Lord.” He has so changed his party into a semi-religious organisation that it is hard to imagine someone who is not a born-again evangelical becoming leader soon.
On his watch America has become a nation that tortures detainees, ceding the irreplaceable moral high ground that it has occupied for decades. His diplomacy has been execrable, when it has existed at all. Can this really be the same person? A decent man of faith who sanctions torture? A man who speaks of responsibility while handing over massive debt to the next generation? A conservative who expands government? Perhaps we are too close to him to see this in perspective — and the closed circle of his administration makes inspection even harder. We do know that his ambitions are as large as they are unlikely. He has indicated that his second term will solve the riddle.
Some say second terms are bound to end in failure. I don’t see why. Reagan cemented a revolution in economic policy and ended the cold war abroad. Clinton signed welfare reform and balanced the budget. Yes, Reagan had Iran-contra and Clinton had Lewinsky. But the scandals are outweighed by the achievements.
Bush’s real chance is in the Middle East. In Iraq we are on the brink of a new era — either of democratic renewal or catastrophe. My bet is on renewal, simply because it is in the interests of the 80% of Iraqis who are Kurds or Shi’ites and because that 80% has the resources of the US army to help it to crush resistance.
In Afghanistan we have the inklings of an Islamic democracy. In the West Bank we may have a Palestinian leader who has democratic legitimacy and can negotiate with Ariel Sharon, the Israeli leader. These are real achievements for Bush.
Without the Afghan war, the West would still be beset by a terror factory and Afghans by theocratic fascists. Without Bush’s support, Sharon would not have moved towards a secure peace. Without Bush’s refusal to deal with the mobster Yasser Arafat, we might never have broken the cycle of Palestinian terror (we still may not). Without Bush and Tony Blair we would be facing the evil of Saddam, aided by a corrupt UN and the threat of a possible terrorist-WMD alliance.
If Bush manages to nudge these hopeful developments to a more peaceful and democratic solution, then he will have pulled off a feat almost rivalling Reagan’s.
Domestically Bush has a chance to cut spending and unravel the behemoth of the social security system — again a huge shift in the political tectonic plates. Maybe a moderate successor will emerge who can contain the excesses of the religious right while not losing his party’s base.
I know. I’m hoping for the best. I didn’t back him for re-election for many of the reasons I’ve cited. It could still end badly. But every inauguration requires a modicum of goodwill and hope. Optimism may be too much given Iraq’s troubles and Bush’s now undeniable limitations. But hope: that we can muster. It may not even be that irrational.
