Four More Years
Will a second term bring a kinder, gentler George W. Bush?

In the days before George W. Bush was re-elected President of the United States, a story spread through the back alleys of official Washington: Bush had allegedly called Secretary of State Colin Powell into his office and said, "I had to be a war President in my first term. I want to be a peace President in my second term, and I need you to stay on and help me do that." The story was false. Several of Powell's close associates not only denied the story but also laughed when they heard it—they have seen no palpable evidence that Bush plans to change course in a second term. At about the same time, another story began to circulate, this one involving Bush and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "In my second term," the President told Annan, "I want to secure a Middle East peace—but I don't want to fall into the same trap as Clinton." That story is true, according to several sources.

In fact, no one really knows what sort of President Bush will show up on Jan. 20 to begin his second term. There are two schools of wishful thinking. One is the "legacy" school, composed mostly of Washington-establishment Republicans of both moderate and conservative hue. "Second terms are about legacy," said a g.o.p. establishmentarian. "I think you'll see a midcourse correction and admission of errors on Iraq now that the Democrats can't make a negative ad about it. I think you'll see him make a real move on expanding health care and tax simplification. He may try some small Social Security-privatization demonstration projects. He will have to address the budget deficit. He will want to find ways to cooperate with Democrats to get things accomplished."

The other school—composed of religious conservatives, neoconservatives and most Democrats—scoffs at the idea of an outbreak of diplomacy and bipartisanship. Bush is who he is: bold, tough, faith based, unyielding. In this scenario, Bush will not only hang tough in Iraq, he'll also confront Iran about its nuclear arms program, not give an inch to North Korea and stand shoulder to shoulder with Ariel Sharon. He will aggressively pursue the privatization of Social Security, the voucherization of health care and the dramatic simplification of the tax code. He will do this, supporters say, because he thinks he is a leader of rare vision—or because, detractors say, he is a leader of rare arrogance.

Of course, reality forces even the most stubborn politicians to make U-turns—and in the next four years, Bush will have to spend much of his time dealing with the unpleasant realities he spent the past two campaign years denying. There are at least four titanic "reality-based" problems that this "faith-based" President now confronts. First, the U.S. does not have the military resources to continue an expansive, unilateral foreign policy; we may not even have the resources to maintain our troop strength in Iraq at its current level for very long. Second, we don't have the money to fund any of Bush's domestic plans—certainly not the privatization of Social Security, which has an up-front cost of $1 trillion. Third, Democrats are furious at the tone of the Bush campaign and in no mood to cooperate on anything. Finally, there is explosive anger among traditional G.O.P. fiscal conservatives—and among those who believe the war in Iraq was either wrong from the start or stupidly executed.

Bush's instinctive style defeated John Kerry's cerebral calculations. The question now is whether Bush's political instincts lead him back to the things he promised in 2000: to be a more compassionate conservative, to run a humble foreign policy, to be a uniter not a divider. —from TIME, November 15, 2004

Questions

1. What are the two schools of thought about the possible priorities for George W. Bush's second term as President?

2. What four "reality-based" problems face Bush?