SanFranGate

Don't underestimate Dubya

Rob Morse, Sunday, April 22, 2001

It's Earth Day, so let's talk about the guy who's supposed to be as dumb as dirt.

Maybe George W. Bush is a few IQ points this side of loam, but liberals know that test scores don't mean a thing. Besides, people of Bush's social class know they can buy IQ.

Lawyers, think tanks, pollsters and Harvard are part of a big intellectual Ebay, where people with power can purchase any kind of expertise, advice or shiny economic theory they want.

Of course, we know that politicians are commodities, too. They just can't give the appearance of being bought.

Until last week, Bush had been wearing a big "sold" sign as he abandoned his pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, rejected curbs on global warming, opposed restrictions on mining federal lands and approved more arsenic in the drinking water.

You shouldn't need polls and focus groups to know Americans will react badly to mining companies leaking arsenic into their ice tea and kiddie pools. But apparently Bush couldn't see a bad reaction coming.

He seemed unaware that Americans have become environmentalists since he was throwing beer cans into the Yale Quad. How would he know everyone recycles? The maid always did it.

-- -- --

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE BUSH, though. He may have inherited silver-foot-in- mouth disease, but the measure of intelligence is whether one is capable of learning. Bush seems to be a learner.

He learned enough to take some good environmental advice, announcing last week that he would set aside wetlands and adopt Clinton administration rules on reporting lead emissions.

And just when I've switched to straight bourbon, I learn he may even consider putting smaller doses of arsenic in our water.

No, Bush isn't as dumb as we like to think he is. If he's responding to polls showing we don't like being poisoned, he isn't letting on. He doesn't want to be labeled as poll-driven the way Clinton was -- among other "drivens."

Bush also doesn't want to be labeled a Yankee elitist. Last week, he toured Connecticut and never mentioned that he was born and educated in that state, a state his grandfather once served as a distinguished senator. He's smart enough to dance with who brung him, to use a Texas expression.

-- -- --

BUSH IS NOT TO BE UNDERESTIMATED, as Ann Richards learned when Bush defeated her in the Texas governor's race. Richards warned Al Gore's advisers that they should worry about the guy with the what-me-worry smile, but they didn't worry enough to call Big Bubba for help.

Underestimating Bush is an American industry. He's the first president to get a parody TV show before his first international crisis.

The international crisis on Hainan island had more laughs than Comedy Central's "That's My Bush." (Only reality could have a Chinese pilot giving his e-mail address.) The show is such a mess that Bush, as played by look- alike Timothy Bottoms, seems like a compassionate conservationist.

Texas columnist Molly Ivins thinks Washington journalists overestimate Bush.

But then, Washington journalists overestimate anyone with power.

"Everyone knows the man has no clue, but no one has the courage to say it," Ivins said of Bush. "I mean, good gawd, the man is as he always was: barely adequate."

With all due respect for a wonderful columnist, it's been a century and a half since adequacy was a requirement for being president.

Otherwise Bush could have used the slogan "Barely Adequate" and won the election.

-- -- --

AS A FORMER TEACHER OF CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE PROBLEMS, I know two things that apply to Bush. First, language ability bears little relation to intelligence and, second, there are different kinds of intelligence.

The standard argument that Bush is intelligent hinges on the fact that he went to Ivy League schools. However, the most useful thing you learn at a place like Harvard or Yale is never to be impressed because people went to Ivy League schools.

Ivy League schools turn out more half-smart people than smart people, and they're twice as scary.

A half-smart person is someone who thinks he's smarter than he is. Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy and Henry Kissinger were half-smart Ivy Leaguers at their most dangerous.

A smart person knows he isn't as smart as he could be. John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush are examples of Ivy Leaguers smart enough to know they need hired intellectual help. Of course, Kennedy hired Bundy and McNamara, who gave us Vietnam.

Bush is giving us arsenic and global warming. But he's smart enough to turn over the brain work of the presidency to Colin Powell and Dick Cheney and go to the gym and work out. He's flexible enough to suddenly become a false friend of the Earth.

If you think Bush is as dumb as dirt, then you'd better be careful drinking the water or breathing the air. His name is still mud.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001

Answers

Wonder what the concensus is on Dubya's handling of the Chinese incident?? Has this first "crisis" helped "legitimize" his presidency?? Was he "presidential"??
Just wondering out loud...

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001

I've read a lot of the articles, Brent, and find that the majority say he's done a good job. Public opinionn polls say the same. Not that I'm influenced by them; I personally think he did a very good job, given the circumstances--particularly since he's hardly had time to unbutton his jacket since he moved into the White House. The negotiations must have been like walking on eggshells, dealing as he was with a country whose philosophy on "face" is many-layered, intricate and full of pitfalls.

I was particularly impressed by Bush's decision to let the families greet their loved ones relatively privately. As an ex-fighter pilot, Bush knows from the down side up what a mess a VIP visit (let alone a presidential one) can cause to a base and/or city; he simply didn't want that distraction and stress to spoil in any way the relief and happiness of the families. It wwould have been, to him, a self-aggrandizing gesture. He can exercise restraint and indulge his desire to honor the crew when they visit the White House. (Instead of keeping everybody waiting an hour or more while he yacks to dignitaries in the comfort of the O Club. I'm still knocked back by the fact that Clinton recently kept an Indian Royal family waiting several hours because he decided to play a round of golf instead of keep his appointment on time. . .)

Maybe he got lucky. But, don't worry, there's bound to be another huge crisis before too long--we'll see how he does.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001

"country whose philosophy on "face" is many-layered, intricate and full of pitfalls."

That's what i found so interesting about the Chinese shrinks move to recategorize homosexuality.. On the one hand, we have the Chinese current political bluster.. On the other, they allow such a cultural change.. Maybe it's just my own perception, but it seems to me this sort of cultural shift could tend to "delegitimize" the Chinese Pols in the eyes of their own citizens(something i assumed they would be reluctant to do)
Just off the wall thoughts..
cheers
brent

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001

I wish I knew enough about the Chinese mindset to discuss the change--the drastic and sudden change--in their view of homosexuality. Maybe someone better versed can explain. In the meantime, here's a Baltimore Sun article about Bush and the job he's doing.

Bush receives analysts' praise for early months of presidency
Tax cut, China rift considered successes

By Paul West
Sun National Staff
Originally published April 22, 2001

WASHINGTON - Even before George W. Bush took office, his advisers were trying to discourage efforts to put his first 100 days under a microscope.

Far better to wait, they suggested, until he'd been on the job for at least six months.

But by most measures, Bush has gotten off to the best start of any president since Ronald Reagan, eclipsing his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, and his father as well.

As the 100th day approaches next week, Bush is getting high marks not only from fellow Republicans, but also from some Democrats.

"He has handled one foreign policy crisis well, [and] he has started to dominate the national debate and national attention," says Donald A. Baer, communications director in the Clinton White House. "On all of those fronts, he's done quite well."

Exceeding expectations, Bush won initial approval in Congress for most of his $1.6 trillion tax cut, his signature proposal. He put together a widely praised Cabinet, and he ended a tense standoff with China by gaining the safe release of a captured U.S. aircrew.

Perhaps most important, he avoided serious blunders and major embarrassments. Predictions that Bush would not enjoy a traditional honeymoon because of the prolonged post-election fight turned out to be wrong.

By contrast, the opening months of Clinton's first term were marked by a series of distractions and setbacks, including a controversy over his plan to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Bush's father saw his nominee for defense secretary, John Tower, rejected by the Senate.

Bush has done well, "given the fact that he was not on top in popular votes," says Ken Khachigian, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan White Houses. "The really smart thing that they've done is, they've acted like they won by a landslide. I think Bush is a pretty smart character. Reagan may have been unparalleled in his ability to sell and communicate, but this guy ain't doing bad."

Using successes as a model

Bush is sticking tightly - some say too tightly - to a blueprint drafted well in advance. He has made a conscious effort to profit from, and play off of, the mistakes of predecessors while using their successes as models.

"Bush has tried to define himself vis-a-vis Clinton, vis-a-vis his father and vis-a-vis Reagan in different ways," says Jeff Bell, a Republican strategist. "He's very much an observer of previous presidents."

He has also been lucky, as successful politicians often are.

In his campaign speeches, which called for restoring honor and dignity to the presidency, Bush signaled his intention to exploit comparisons with Clinton's weak personal image. But the breathtaking flood of criticism over Clinton's last-minute pardons drew that contrast more sharply.

Clinton "left a pretty low bar to jump over; I think it made a big difference," Khachigian said. "I think Bush is determined to be dignified and presidential, without being stiff and patrician. And so he's more Midland [Texas] than Groton [Conn.]"

The symbols of this new decorum (including an Oval Office dress code requiring neckties and banning blue jeans) have gotten attention. To further highlight the contrast with Clinton, Bush has avoided major fund-raising activity. (He'll begin in earnest next month.)

Staying out of limelight

But it is the administration's broader public relations strategy that has gotten positive notices in political circles.

Clinton injected himself into nearly every major national event, while Bush has not. And unlike Clinton, who brought the rapid-response culture of the presidential campaign into office, Bush isn't trying to "win" the daily battle for coverage on the nightly TV news, notes Bill Carrick, a Democratic consultant in Los Angeles.

"Bush's low-key style and staying out of the vortex on a lot of these swirling issues seems to work very effectively for him," he said. "His point of view is: We're in here for the long haul, and we're going to try to win these battles in their totality and not try to have all these interim public-relations maneuvers."

During the standoff with China, Bush retreated into the background. After the crew was released, he chose not to steal the spotlight by rushing to greet them.

"Clinton would have been out there with the servicemen, but that's just not President Bush's style," says Jim Brulte, the Republican leader of the California Senate, who is close to the White House. "He's not a grandstander or a showboater."

Bush's relatively low profile may also reflect a lack of experience in dealing with some of the issues coming before him. He seemed ill at ease on the few occasions he spoke in public about the China standoff, though he defied pressure from some conservatives to adopt a tougher stance and presided over a successful resolution.

That incident, "while not a huge deal, was a foreign challenge" that helped erase some of the doubts about Bush's lack of foreign-policy credentials, notes Richard Williamson, the Illinois Republican chairman and a former Reagan White House aide. "Once again, history has shown that a governor can handle these things."

Foreign policy

Bush's foreign policy, while still unformed, also reflects his effort to distinguish himself from Clinton, at least symbolically. He is taking a harder line against Russia, China, and North Korea and is attempting to disengage somewhat in the Balkans and the Middle East, though the United States is still involved in both regions.

There may be a danger in Bush's relaxed, Reaganesque approach to the presidency. He has delegated the day-to-day business of running the government to an experienced staff led by Vice President Dick Cheney while taking time away from the office for frequent trips to Camp David or his Texas ranch.

"He has a hangover from the election, fueled by late-night TV [comics], that he is an inarticulate, bumbling chief executive," Carrick says. "That perception's going to run out of gas if he continues to perform at a level of adequacy. But the White House has to constantly watch the whole problem because it's too easy for him to get defined by the popular culture."

Williamson, however, is reminded of the news media's "obsession" with Reagan's frequent misstatements of fact.

"The people didn't care," Williamson says. Bush's personal likability allows him to connect with the public, just as Reagan's and Clinton's did, he adds.

Focus on goals

Bush has focused, as did Reagan, on pushing a handful of items through Congress while his political capital is at a peak. Bush's approach, which is not as ideologically driven as Reagan's, has been called "big-government conservatism" by Marshall Wittmann of the Hudson Institute.

"The surprising thing about George W. Bush is that he uses very moderate rhetoric, but he governs very conservatively," says conservative economist Stephen Moore. "Most of us thought Bush was more of a middle-of-the-road Republican, so it's been a very pleasant surprise for people like me. For conservatives, he has really been a star."

The cast of the Bush Cabinet has cheered conservatives. The administration tilts further to the right in many important second- and third-tier appointments, which have drawn little attention.

Key decisions, such as abandoning his campaign pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions and reversing Clinton administration regulations on repetitive-stress injuries in the workplace, have also drawn the approval of conservatives - and angry protests from liberal interest groups.

Bolstering his standing

To shore up his political standing, after an extremely narrow electoral-vote victory, Bush has traveled to more than 25 states, more than any other new president, often appearing at rallies packed with cheering supporters.

"From a political standpoint, it's been a very prudent move to the right in the beginning," says David Smick, publisher of International Economy magazine and a former Republican strategist. "Unlike his father, he's moving to nail down his base, knowing that eventually he's going to have to move back" to the center.

The efforts to ward off opposition from the right have also projected a politically risky outline of a pro-business, anti-environment presidency. But White House aides, led by chief strategist Karl Rove, are trying to prevent these early impressions from permanently molding Bush's image.

Last week, they waged a public campaign to repair lagging poll ratings on Bush's handling of the environment, his weakest area in a recent Newsweek poll. The survey also pegged his overall job approval rate at close to 60 percent, behind Reagan's at this stage but slightly better than Clinton's and Bush's father's.

During his first months in office, Bush has been helped by the Democrats' apparent uncertainty over their role in the first Republican-controlled federal government (Congress and White House) in nearly a half-century.

"I don't think they've figured out how to deal with Bush," says former Colorado Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder, who sees a level of frustration among her former colleagues that reminds her of early Democratic confusion over how to counter Reagan.

Schroeder said she has been impressed by the deftness of Bush's political operation, in cutting his losses in the ill-fated choice of Linda Chavez as labor secretary and the more recent attempt to blur the lines on the environment after his decision to pull back a regulation on arsenic in drinking water prompted outrage from environmental groups.

Those same sharp-eyed skills will be called into play over the next few months as final details of the tax-cut plan are negotiated and as the administration tries to find ways to soften the inevitable clashes between environmental protection and Bush's desire to boost energy production.

Major questions remain: about the direction of Bush's foreign policy and trade policy, about the precise ideological thrust of Bush's judicial nominations and the extent to which he will stick to his conservative guns on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

The economy

And overshadowing everything is the fate of the economy. While the slowdown may help Bush win approval for a tax cut in the range of $1.2 trillion to $1.4 trillion, a prolonged recession could be politically disastrous.

Even those giving Bush A's for his performance caution that they're only midterm grades.

"It's almost like judging the score of a basketball game at halftime," says economist Moore. "Remember the first 100 days of the Gingrich revolution, where you had a whole agenda [the Contract with America] passed? That was it. It was 100 days of glory, and then it all fizzled. Which is why 100 days is overrated." Copyright © 2001, The Baltimore Sun

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001