Print

Mail

wiki links

Bush bound to choose compromise in the end

George W. Bush isn't a mild conservative. His greatest political backing has always come from the Republican Party's far right. That he was able to win the White House was largely due to the support of the far right.

But when Bush was governor of Texas, he called himself the "bi-partisan governor." Even though he is now ridiculed as the "minority president appointed by the Supreme Court," the Democratic Party in truth has had difficulty finding fault with his actions since he took office, actions which strongly indicate his intention to be a "bipartisan president."

Bush's expressions of goodwill to the Democratic Party have been defined as a skillfully designed "charm offensive" created to shift his clearly right-slanted political views closer to the center.

Still, he must face certain political realities, including the fact that he is a minority president who received fewer popular votes than his opponent in the general election, plus the unique situation in which the two main political parties have an almost identical number of seats in Congress.

These circumstances have made it necessary for Bush to be a "bipartisan president" -- or he might find that his orders never make it out of the White House.

Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, called himself a "new democrat" and took the middle-road policy line. Still, Clinton displayed orthodox Democratic thinking when he proposed his health care plan, and it failed miserably in Congress.

During Clinton's eight years in office, this failure proved to be his greatest frustration. The disappointment, however, was not due to the fact that he lost in Congress, but rather that he wasn't able to turn his ethical principles into policy.

Bush presently faces a Congress divided equally along party lines. Though the situation is slightly better than the Republican Congressional majority Clinton had to deal with, if Bush chooses to blindly adhere to traditional Republican ethical principles, his initiatives will indubitably end up like Clinton's health care plan -- Waterloo revisited.

Bush's tax-cut proposal for example, is not only an election promise, but has long been central to Republican party's policy platform. But this item alone might cost the government US$2 trillion. The tax cuts implemented by Ronald Reagan during his presidency threw America into a serious budget deficit crisis, causing fears that persist to this day.

But the tax-cut proposal is both an election promise and one of the political principles that Bush adheres to. If he abandons the tax cut, the Republican party will certainly criticize him as a turncoat. If he supports it to the bitter end, however, Congress will oppose him. In that event, even with veto power, Bush would be powerless to reverse the situation, and his status as the minority president would surely become increasingly unstable.

No country's leader can depend on charm or goodwill to govern a nation. Although they are positive political attributes, when political style meets political reality frustration is inevitable. If one hopes to avoid such frustration, it is necessary to make appropriate concessions. Clinton's health care and Bush's tax-cut proposals are both cases in point -- as is Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (核四) compromise.

Although frustration can leave a leader feeling helpless, it is merely a "period" signalling the end of a part of the story. The eight years of history written by Clinton didn't stop because of a failed health care plan. On the contrary, other parts of the story improved as time went on. And if Clinton can do it, Bush can too.

Wang Chien-chuang is the president of The Journalist magazine.

Translated by Scudder Smith
This story has been viewed 1963 times.