The most pulsating polls of the moment are the polls that measure a re-elected US President George W. Bush's popularity, and thus the "dividend" he intended to spend on "being Bush." Strange news: there is no dividend. And George, at this point of the second term, is the least popular president of the US since World War II.
Let's (from Gallup's March ratings) put figures on that claim. Harry Truman in March 1949 stood at 57 percent approval. Dwight Eisenhower in 1957 had 65 percent, Lyndon Johnson in 1965 a full 69 percent. Richard Nixon (1973) retained 57 percent. In more recent times, Ronald Reagan (1985) held at 56 percent and Bill Clinton (1997) at 59 percent. Last month's Bush score was 45 percent. This month it has crawled up a point or two, but still runs flat bottom of the pack.
How can this possibly be? Well, issues coagulate. Only one US citizen in three is happy about the state of the economy. Petrol prices are taking a terrible toll -- and connecting with the continuing toll in Iraq. A US majority (52 percent) now regrets going to war. Bush's showpiece social-security plan has opened and closed like Michael Frayn's Democracy on Broadway.
But one thing seeps into another. The Terri Schiavo tragedy -- born-again Republicans on Capitol Hill rushing round to tell hard-working doctors and Florida judges what to do -- dictating business as usual.
Where's the momentum of last November and of a clear victory that laid doubts about 2000's narrow squeak to rest? There is no momentum, because there is no future for this administration. The US' newspapers, week by week now, record those big-and-small-name Republicans hiring extra aides, preparing policy positions, jetting away to eat rubber chicken in New Hampshire or Iowa. Whither Rudy Giuliani? Which way Senator John McCain? Whatever happened to brother Jeb?
Democrats, in defeat and returning hope, can hit the trail again without raising too much dust: Senator John Edwards and Senator John Kerry are wending their ways separately this time, Senator Hillary Clinton pursues ambition along a dedicated path. But Republicans don't know which way to go.
Will there be a Bush inheritance come 2008, a fat, happy slice of America that likes big government, big deficits and rightwing tub-thumping? Or will the Republicans split open wide as they ponder the micro-management of ordinary people's lives, poor Terri Schiavo's lingering legacy?
The crucial point is that every previous modern second-term president has had his succession in order as he settled down to four more years.
The vice-president was there to be anointed. The flickering flame had a designated carrier.
Only George W. lacks that sense of continuity. There are occasional, slightly bizarre tales about Vice President Dick Cheney getting ready to run, but no wonder cures for a chronic heart condition to give them credibility. After Bush, for the moment, there is only a huge question mark, and a vacuum that must be filled by a party making up its mind in the open and in office, the various challengers competing dissonantly to offer something different.
Some commentators, of course, are keen on term limits. But these always limit what presidents -- even with a clear successor named -- can achieve during that last quarter of their time in power. Without that succession in place, as we see, the rot sets in far earlier.
It doesn't give the opposition instant clout. The Democrats are still in the doldrums. But it divides and enervates the party of government, sets it arguing and concentrating on a future that may never happen. It is one damned row after another.
In short, Bush, the alleged master of the world, has failed to get his front parlors and waiting rooms organized. And already that failure begins to drag him down. Get your succession policy wrong in a chattering world of personality-charged politics and nothing goes right. That's the fire smouldering under Bush. It is the blaze beginning to consume France as President Jacques Chirac falters. It is also the fact behind the smoke of the past few days in Britain.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- much impressed by what his chum Jose Maria Aznar seemed to have achieved in Spain -- thought he could set a limit on his own term. But Aznar had his succession in order and his party under strict control -- he still lost. Blair's only visible strategy seemed to be to make sure that his obvious successor got shafted somewhere along the road to 2009.
Well, we know that it didn't work. The chorus of polls and commentators hails the triumph of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, and the humiliation of a suddenly peripheral Tony.
The debate between the pair seems to be centered on policy, on privatizations, public spending et al. But the reality is cruder and starker than that. Blair is paying for his folly of doubt last year -- the debate in his own head about carrying on or not. His wobble ended when he gave himself four more years, but they aren't his to bestow.
It's a crisp conversation over cocktails when the G8 comes to London this summer. What's the giddy limit, George? Search me, prime minister: I'm the last one to know.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers