TIME - Man of the Year/CompactPublishing-TimeMagazine-TimeManOfTheYear-Win31MSDOS.iso/moy/082492/08249925.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 5.4 KB | 109 lines

                                                                                COVER STORIES, Page 25

PRESIDENT BUSH

The Political Interest: Reading Between The Lines


By Michael Kramer


    Bushed. In content if not in tone, that single word best
describes the President's performance during his interview with
TIME last Wednesday morning. As the polls regularly probe the
magnitude of his problem, the President demonstrated again that
the problem is he. Seated behind a bare desk in the Oval Office,
Bush appeared tense and frosty. A combative, feisty session was
telegraphed, but the President seemed intellectually spent.
Especially during a high-stakes election campaign, a politician
on top of his game pursues his own agenda. Old grudges are
stowed. Interviews are perceived as opportunities. A case is
made as inconvenient questions are ignored. Ask about marital
infidelity, for example, and one expects to hear "I'm glad you
asked about adultery. It reminds me of my health-care
proposals." From Bush, though, it was mostly familiar stuff: a
dose of Congress bashing and a litany of old bromides,
platitudes and topic sentences devoid of the specificity that
undergirds Bill Clinton's appeal.

    I have known George Bush for 15 years. He is smart and
sharp, a quick study. I have seen him dazzle by sheer force of
intellect. But not last week. He spoke coherently, but a close
read of his comments considered alongside his record suggests
too little defense and only a halfhearted offense. At the end
of our session the President invoked his mother's advice: ``Do
your best, try your hardest." Sadly -- and inexplicably, since
there is much he can legitimately trumpet -- for 40 minutes Bush
did neither.

    The President explained his political misfortunes with a
two-word answer: "The economy." Missing were Bush's now standard
insistence that "we're poised for an outstanding recovery" and
his usual slam at the media for focusing on "only bad news." The
diagnosis was honest, but once again there was no prescription.
"I think you've got to look very carefully at where you go from
here," said Bush. "I'll be making some proposals regarding the
economy that I'm not going to discuss now that I think will take
care of it." The last time the President told the nation to
"stay tuned" was last fall. In the midst of Pat Buchanan's
G.O.P. primary challenge, Bush's aides promised "new approaches"
in his State of the Union address. The country waited and then
yawned. Little new was offered. Another yawn this fall will send
the President to retirement. If he really has "new approaches"
up his sleeve, they had better be compelling.

    With a glance at a note card, Bush hit the need to compete
globally and once again identified education and safe streets
as requisites. But once again, no specifics of note. In fact,
a brief discussion of drug policy illustrated the President's
casual attitude toward domestic issues and the degree to which
politics drives policy. During the 1988 campaign, hardly a day
passed without Bush decrying the evils of drugs. He knew how to
end "this scourge," he said repeatedly; he'd learned "a lot"
about the problem at the cia and as the head of President
Reagan's drug-policy task force. What exactly he had learned he
reiterated after only five days in office: "The elimination of
drugs is going . . . to be successful only if our education is
successful. The answer to the problem lies more on solving the
demand side of the equation than it does on the supply side --
on interdiction or sealing the borders."

    But Bush's spending priorities have told a different tale.
The polls said Americans favored get-tough measures, and Bush
has followed the polls. Funding for the "war against drugs" has
doubled, but law enforcement has received more than two-thirds
of the $12 billion spent so far. "In the second term we ought to
[emphasize] the demand side," the President told TIME --
without a hint of embarrassment for having strayed from the
course he knew to be right all along.

    When the colloquy turned to sex, Bush seemed emphatic: A
candidate's private life should be left unexplored -- unless bad
behavior is flaunted or the public trust is betrayed, concepts
the President left teasingly undefined. Good family values rule
out infidelity, but Bush sensed a quagmire (which is how one
reads this President when he says, "That's a very good
question"). Politicians can be "destroyed" by inquiries into
their private lives, he said finally; the rummaging isn't "worth
the candle." He gave Bill Clinton a pass, agreeing that
questions about his opponent's marriage should be avoided. He
said he would fire those on his staff who spoke of Clinton's
private troubles. But since Barbara Bush did just that the next
day (Clinton "never denied having a fling, did he?" she said),
one wonders if the President must now fire his wife.

    The government and the re-election campaign of the man who
heads it are under new management. As de facto deputy President,
Jim Baker can do much, but only Bush can finally convince
voters that "four more years" will change their lives for the
better. This week's Republican Convention will help; good shows
always do. But unless the President conveys new energy and
contrives some new plans, he may as well take the fall off and
retool his old campaign slogan to read "Ready on Day One to Be
a Great Ex-President."