Bush: Without a Sense of Direction, Leading the Party May Lead No Place

The economic problems for a Bush Administration began about a month ago, when Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) dropped out of the presidential race. Dole had been pounding away at the federal budget deficit, preaching the old-time Republican religion of balanced budgets and spending freezes; in response, a Washington Post story reported, Vice President Bush had come up with a detailed description of his own spending freeze. After Dole withdrew, Bush withdrew his detailed budget proposal. With Dole out, there was no urgency about proposing or promising a program.

Candidate Bush has it easy. While the Democrats scramble like mad gerbils to find a candidate who will lead them to something other than disaster in November, the vice president leads his unified party unopposed. On the other hand, President Bush--should there be a President Bush--has a problem: the affliction of his earlier good fortune.

The next President, Bush or anybody else, will have to move on the economy. The budget and trade deficits are still out of their cage: A majority of business economists in a recent survey predicted a recession for 1989. A bipartisan National Economic Commission (loaded with heavyweights appointed by Congress and the White House) will announce a budgetary and economic program in March of next year. Polls show that people want a change of direction, and the Democratic left is resurgent on economic issues. Doing nothing is not an option. And if Bush and the Republicans do not develop a strong sense of what they want to do--as a tough primary would have forced them to--Bush will have his economic agenda set for him.

The recent record makes clear what a President with a sense of mission can achieve. In 1980 Ronald Reagan entered office with no one doubting what he was about: attacking inflation, reducing the burdens that government imposes on the private sector, balancing the budget, cutting taxes, spending more on defense and repealing the Carter presidency generally. The program conflicted with reality in some places and with itself in others but it gave purpose to Reagan’s whole first term. And its electrifying effect on the Washington Establishment made Reagan’s reputation fearsome--an invaluable asset. Reaganomics put the President on the political offensive and kept him there for four years.

In 1984, Reagan ran a different campaign. The party threw a love feast; good feelings washed over the electorate like a warm bath. It was great politics. And it left the President adrift. As things turned out, he found something to do--tax reform; but when that was finished (and it never much inspired the country), the cupboard was bare. As it turned out, Reagan could get away with coasting for four years. He had his first-term blitzkrieg under his belt. Bush won’t have that luxury. If he comes to office without an agenda of his own, he risks being dominated by the agenda he inherits.

Campaigns are crucibles, burning rhetorical goo into crystalline substance. A primary season pitting Bush against Dole, with his harping on fiscal responsibility, and against Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), with his damn-the-deficits proselytizing for growth, would have forced the Republicans to figure out who they are and who they need to be. The process can be nasty and divisive but it also yields dividends as a party finds its voice.

The Democrats are already reaping those dividends, at least on economic policy. You may not like the emerging Democratic program, well to the left of where the party was even a year ago (and maybe too far left to win), but a program it is. The government needs to “invest” (big Democratic buzzword) heavily in education, research, technology and infrastructure; it needs to guide and aid industrial change; business and labor need to work “with” rather than “against” each other; corporate mergers and yuppie “speculation” need to be curbed in favor of longer-term investments; corporations need to be pressed to show more loyalty to America; foreign countries need to be pressed to treat their workers better; allies need to do more to pay for their own defense. Above all, activist government is the solution, not the problem.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Bush talks about freezing federal spending, holding the line against higher taxes, holding the line against protectionism, cutting the capital-gains tax rate from 28% to 15%, reforming the congressional budget process, getting a line-item veto and being an “education President.” That’s basically it. Nothing inspiring there, except maybe the part about education--which is also a major Democratic theme. Bush position papers are full of positions, but his candidacy lacks an economic center--in particular, any clear sense of what government should and should not be doing, and why.

On one hand, Bush wants to privatize and deregulate; on the other, he calls for government initiatives on education, rural development and gasohol. What’s he all about?

To all of this needs to be added an intangible, the Bush rhetoric, which understandably seeks to keep the vice president out of trouble, keeping him vague and inoffensive: “We’re going to show Congress and show the spenders and the left and the liberals that we mean it this time--we mean business--the old ways are over, we’ve got to push on”. If you project yourself as distinguished and trustworthy, are seen as an amiable guy, and can capitalize on disunion within the other party, you can’t go wrong with vague and inoffensive--before the election. Unfortunately, you can’t go anywhere with it afterward. That was the discovery that Reagan and the Republicans made in 1985.

Bush may be about to relearn Reagan’s lesson. That does not mean a Bush presidency would be unable to get anything done. It does mean that President Bush would have a hard time winning the offensive from the Democrats in Congress, whose economic views will have been toughened and sharpened by the 1988 campaign; from the National Economic Commission’s anti-deficit pronouncements which are likely to draw headlines, and above all, from the deficits themselves. For a presidency, there has to be more to life than balancing the budget.

In a political world, a White House without a strong sense of direction on economic policy is asking for trouble. In Washington, drift leads to fracture, and fracture to paralysis. Paralysis would certainly be bad for the Republican presidency. It would also be a risky thing for a country--a world, for that matter--badly in need of economic leadership.

The GOP has time to close the economic-agenda gap between now and November. Does George Bush have the vision or the will?