Natl Review Changing the : How Bush confounds his enemies.

May 21, 2001 2:00 p.m.

If the political melodrama of Washington has been a bit confusing lately, it's in part because the actors seem to be reading each other's lines.

Usually it's the party in power that says that things are going swimmingly. The opposition warns of lurking disaster and growing problems. The Bush administration, however, has stolen the Cassandra role from the Democrats. It's an extremely shrewd strategy to which the Democrats have not adjusted. The role reversal is plainest when it comes to the top issues of the year: the economy and energy. In December, Dick Cheney said that "we might be on the front edge of a recession." Now, Cheney says that we're also facing an "energy crisis." The Democrats have denied both propositions. In the first case, they accused the White House of "talking down" an economy that remained fundamentally healthy. They also deny that there is any energy crisis.

The same pattern applies to other issues as well. Democrats insist that our expensive entitlement programs will remain solvent for decades and that any slight problems with them can be solved by tinkering; Bush says that structural reform is needed to stave off bankruptcy. The administration wants to build a defense against nuclear missiles because it's a dangerous world. Democrats wonder who our enemy is. One explanation for Bush's peculiar behavior may be that it's early in his term. By highlighting problems, Bush may be trying to suggest that the preceding president should get the blame for them before they become associated with him. He may also hope that if things do not turn out as badly as predicted, he will look that much better to the public. He has, as critics never tire of mentioning, benefited from surpassing low expectations before.

But there may be a deeper strategy at work. It's not just this year that he has reversed the parties' standard roles. He did it in the campaign as well. Usually the incumbent party is also the party of serenity. This is especially the case in a time of plenty. The opposition party has to appeal to popular fears and angers, to whip voters up to demand change. But last year it was Bush who was all calm confidence. Al Gore, the sitting vice president, tried to get voters to join a populist crusade. Where Bush portrayed himself as a "uniter," Gore cast himself as a fighter.

Both this year and last year, Bush's departures from script appealed to the public and left his opponents confused. Bush's soothing campaign rhetoric went over well with a public turned off (and bored) by politics. Bush's pledge to "change the tone" in Washington was one of his most effective tactics.

Now in office, Bush makes himself look concerned and activist by calling attention to problems. Democrats have no clear counter-message: Some of them downplay the problems ("There is no energy crisis"), some advance their own solutions, and many do both at once. It would be so much easier to play the standard roles. If the White House were engaged in happy talk at a time of layoffs and soaring energy prices, Democrats would be able to attack it as callous night and day. That they do not have this opportunity may help account for their sourness of late.

Worse for the Democrats, Bush's rhetoric has brought forth among them a reactionary liberalism. They say that missile defense will destabilize the globe, tax cuts are risky, Social Security can't be touched, etc. Bush is downbeat, but he's a long-run optimist about America after his reforms. The Democrats are allowing themselves to become standpatters.

Interestingly, the Democrats' major political success this year has followed the standard, rather than the revised, pattern. On the environment, they are perceived as the party that recognizes a problem. The Republicans are seen as the party that minimizes environmental problems and gets hysterical about the drawbacks of solutions to them.

Both in 2000 and 2001, Bush's political style has been resolutely non-partisan. He's raising the tone and solving problems, not rallying his troops to attack Democrats. It's a style that seems to suit both the man and the times. If it has a weakness, it's that sometimes harsh partisanship is necessary to vindicate important principles. The nomination of a conservative to the Supreme Court would probably require a different style. Being nice and concerned doesn't help much when you're in a knife fight.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001