A way to salvage the Bush second term

A way to salvage the Bush second term
Published: January 4 2006 02:00 | Last updated: January 4 2006 02:00

How fast political stars fall. A year ago George W. Bush towered over the US political scene, the clear victor of a hard-fought presidential election who had carried his party to increased majorities in both houses of Congress. Twelve months later, he is widely branded a lame-duck president, reduced from grand strategy to crisis management abroad and unable to pass big domestic reforms or set the political agenda at home.

In retrospect, of course, the President Bush of January 2005 was not as invincible as he appeared then, and the President Bush of January 2006 is not as helpless as he looks now. It is still possible for him to bounce back. With three years of his second term to go, events could simply turn in his favour - above all in Iraq, the defining issue of his presidency. Yet Mr Bush should not bank on this. Instead, he must revitalise his administration with new blood and a new style of government: less partisan, more realistic; less insistent on executive prerogative, more willing to engage respectfully with critics.

The starting point is to recognise the need for change. The hard-charging, my-way-or-the-highway approach no longer washes with the American people. According to Gallup, Mr Bush's approval rating in early December was 42 per cent. At the same stage in their presidencies, Bill Clinton's approval rating was 56 per cent, Ronald Reagan's 63 per cent and Lyndon Johnson's 63 per cent. Only Richard Nixon was in worse shape, on 30 per cent.

Mr Bush prides himself in not governing by opinion poll. Yet without public support and trust, his ability to set the agenda, particularly on domestic affairs, is weak. And the going could get even tougher, with continuing entanglement in Iraq and the possibility of further embarrassment from the investigation into the unmasking of a covert Central Intelligence Agency operative. A fresh start is needed.

The standard model for a presidential make-over is Ronald Reagan after the Iran-Contra scandal. President Reagan spoke humbly to the nation, opened his doors to Congress, brought in respected figures to bolster his administration and reached out to Democrats.

Mr Bush's circumstances are not exactly the same. Iran-Contra was illegal under US law, Iraq was not. Iran-Contra was over, Iraq continues. Nonetheless, the Reagan relaunch is a good model for Mr Bush to follow. The American people want a fresh excuse to believe in their president. The Democratic leadership might spurn his advances but some prominent Democrats would not.

There are tentative signs that Mr Bush is exploring just such a change in style. His recent speeches and televised address on Iraq were straight from the Reagan precedent: humble, admitting mistakes, recognising the difficulty of the situation and yet asking the American people to keep faith with him. Subsequent polls suggest a bounce in his approval ratings. But faced with the row over secret wiretapping, the White House quickly reverted to type.

A credible and enduring change in style will require changes in personnel. After five years in power, the administration looks tired and short of ideas. Mr Bush should consider replacing Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary with a less divisive figure - perhaps a Democrat, such as Joe Lieberman, committed to staying the course in Iraq. The White House staff need reinforcing and there is a strong case for new blood at the Treasury. The most important change would be to bring into the justice department respected figures who would advise the president on the proper limits to executive authority.

Mr Bush needs bipartisan support to ward off calls for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Having lost his ability to cow Congress, he also needs bipartisan support to achieve anything of note at home. If he reaches out to moderate Democrats with their own proposals, tax reform is still possible. Failure to reach out could doom the rest of his presidency to impotence.

To some this would be no bad thing: a lame-duck president can do relatively little harm in the world. But this is short-sighted. The remainder of Mr Bush's second term is longer than John F. Kennedy's entire period in office. A nation and a world facing great challenges and many perils can ill afford to be bereft of leadership for so long.

Copyright by the Financial Times