Administration Loyalty Seen in Handling of Ousters

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush unceremoniously dumped his top two economic advisors Friday, few Washington insiders were surprised by the decision. What they did find questionable, though, was the way the two were let go.

There were no leaks to the media. Rumors had wafted about for weeks, largely because of growing dissatisfaction with the state of the economy. But as with other big decisions, the Bush administration kept this one under wraps. Not a single media outlet got wind of the dismissals until a White House announcement Friday morning.

Moreover, the two advisors -- Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill and National Economic Council Director Lawrence B. Lindsey -- were given short notice. And throughout the day, the White House publicly insisted that the resignations were voluntary, even as sources revealed otherwise.

As the O’Neill and Lindsey departures illustrated, the Bush White House is the most disciplined in decades, with aides and officials rarely talking out of school or straying from the official line.

On one hand, some see that as a positive, demonstrating loyalty to the president and an esprit de corps unusual for Washington. But others criticize it as secretive, and caution that it can backfire on the administration.

For instance, the White House appears to have been so concerned that the news about O’Neill and Lindsey not leak that they announced the dismissals before they had picked a new team or unveiled new economic initiatives. The result is that instead of focusing on a new policy direction, media stories focused on the failure of the president’s old one.

“For a White House that’s pretty good at controlling the day-to-day message from the bully pulpit, they dropped the ball on this one,” said Leon E. Panetta, who served as chief of staff to former President Clinton. “It’s obvious that the president has made that kind of discipline an important issue in the White House. But at the same time, you can’t be so absorbed with trying to avoid leaks that it impacts on the policy of the president.”

The Bush team’s cohesion manifests itself in myriad ways, both professional and personal. Every Cabinet meeting, for instance, opens with a prayer, led by a Cabinet secretary. Cabinet members meet regularly over breakfast or lunch to socialize as well as conduct business.

Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman gets together so frequently with Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman that some administration officials refer to them as “the three chicks.”

Spouses of those with jobs in the White House West Wing have formed a support group to help with household chores and child care and to offer companionship.

“This group feels like a family,” Veneman said. “The president has set a very strong tone of working together. But it’s also caring about each other. We’re probably an unusually cohesive group.”

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said another reason that there have been few leaks from within the administration is that Bush allows Cabinet heads to fully air their views in the Oval Office.

“We are given ample chance to express ourselves,” Abraham said. “And if you have that chance, that’s one reason you don’t have a lot of leaking, and backbiting.”

Yet, as the fates of O’Neill and Lindsey made abundantly clear, personal loyalty has its limits when it comes to the political career of the president.

“This administration is dedicated to the proposition that Bush II should not be like Bush I,” said University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato.

The current administration, he said, is determined to avoid the perception of being insufficiently concerned about a weak economy, a perception that crippled the administration of Bush’s father.

Presidential historian Bruce Buchanan of the University of Texas in Austin said that as governor, Bush rarely if ever dismissed anyone from his staff. He surmised that Bush by nature was loath to fire O’Neill and Lindsey, but acceded to political imperatives.

“Loyalty is a code in the family. And that code is one of the ways that Bush sustains control over leaks, that makes his administration unusual,” Buchanan added.

Still, to some extent the appearance of cohesion is just that -- an appearance. Since summer, the departments of State and Defense have engaged in a tug of war over Iraq policy that has worked its way into headlines.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has pressed to exhaust diplomatic means for disarming Iraq before resorting to force. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has expressed skepticism of the U.N. weapons inspections process and is keen to launch a military operation sooner rather than later. For the moment, Powell is holding sway.

“This administration is viewed as trying to hold very tight reins, but the reality is that there is a lot of conflict out there,” Panetta said.

Leaks during the Clinton administration tended to be on domestic policy, he noted. But in this administration, “there have been a lot of leaks from the Pentagon. It’s ... a lot more important that your foreign policy team speaks with one voice.”

One reason for the Bush administration’s closeness is that -- like the rest of the country -- its officials pulled together after last year’s terrorist attacks. But with complicated policy debates underway over Iraq and the economy, that cohesion was bound to fray.

It seems clear that such policy disputes played a central role in Friday’s dismissals. O’Neill had apparent trouble toeing the party line on tax cuts, expressing concern about what the damage the decline in revenues was doing to the budget deficit.

David Gergen, a longtime Washington insider who has advised four presidents, said the Bush team “on the whole and by Washington standards has been one of the most disciplined administrations in years.”

But, Gergen added: “Cohesion is easier to maintain when times are good.”