The Presidential Expectations Gap: Public Attitudes Concerning the Presidency

Chapter 8: George W. Bush: War and the Economy

104 Chapter 8 George W. Bush War and the Economy [O]ne of our jobs is to pick and choose the time when we spend capital, be judicious in how we approach these issues, to not create false expectations, to be realistic about what’s possible, and lead. George W. Bush, interview with the Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2002 Unlike Bill Clinton’s presidency, which was mostly identified with domestic policy issues, particularly the economy and the budget deficit, the presidency of George W. Bush was associated with the politics of war. Though Bush had little foreign policy experience or expertise when he entered the presidential office, and though he intended to focus his presidency on such domestic issues as education and tax cuts, the events of September 11, 2001, utterly transformed his presidency. From that date onward, the Bush presidency was defined by the war on terror, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the second war in Iraq. Though Bush had domestic policy accomplishments (e.g., a prescription drug bill, the “No Child Left Behind” education bill), perceptions of his presidency also involve such controversial issues as whether there was credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, whether the search for Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora was thorough, and whether the use of enhanced interrogation techniques such as water boarding promoted the nation’s security. All of these controversial issues share one common factor: they all fall under the president’s authority as commander in chief. George W. Bush’s presidency represents an interesting comparison case to that of Bill Clinton. Foreign policy was at the forefront of the Bush presidency . In addition to this focus, the Bush presidency contrasts with the Clinton presidency in other interesting ways. While the seventh year of the George W. Bush 105 Clinton presidency ushered in good economic times, the U.S. economy officially slid into recession late in 2007, a few months after our survey was conducted . And while Clinton’s popularity was extremely high as his presidency came to an end, in 2007 there already was a sense of Bush fatigue, with George W. Bush’s ratings falling consistently below 40 percent in national polls. Finally, both presidents dealt at this time in their presidency with divided government, though the party in control of Congress was different (Republicans for Clinton, Democrats for Bush). In this chapter we examine the impact of the expectations gap on a second incumbent president. In particular , we examine how both the economy and war affected the evaluations of President George W. Bush. Expectations and War One of the principal founders of the institutional presidency, Louis Brownlow (1969, 43), writes, “In the endowment of leadership by the Constitution and custom, there remains . . . the greatest expectation of all . . . the expectation that the President, with his unquestioned responsibility for maintaining the initiative in foreign affairs, shall keep us at peace; but if war does come, he shall as Commander-in-Chief lead us to victory.” While expectations are broad, Brownlow notes that they may very well be unreasonable. “Here again we fail to give” the president the “authority commensurate with his responsibilities, but despite this failure to provide him with the means of accomplishing what we ask him to do, we still expect the President to give effect to the national purpose” (43). While we think of the president’s responsibility as commander in chief as one of the primary executive responsibilities, this was not always the case. Initially expectations were modest, except in time of war. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #69, as commander in chief the president was to be nothing more than the supreme commander of the military and naval forces, “as first General and Admiral of the confederacy.” Since the enumerated war power rests with Congress, as well as the power to declare even limited wars (e.g., letters of marque and reprisal), one can narrowly interpret the commander in chief clause as representing a grant of power to the presidency only when the nation is at war or when war is imminent. Certainly, the founders were aware of the potential power that a war president could wield. They were particularly concerned with the power of standing armies and often cited the name of Oliver Cromwell to justify their fear of a renegade military under the control of a ruthless dictator. It is therefore unlikely that 106 The Presidential...