This Week
David E. Sanger
November 10, 2004

David Sanger is White House correspondent for The New York Times. In a 22 year career at the paper, he has reported from New York, Tokyo and Washington, focusing on a wide range of economic, political and security issues.(Read David Sanger's bio)

Q: President Bush says he's earned some political capital and he intends to spend it. What voters made up the key populations which bestowed the president with this capital? Have they indicated how they want to see their mandate used?

Inside the White House, there is a sense that the President's core constituencies came out for him -- the traditional conservatives and the evangelical community, the Hispanics and the veterans, the security moms and even a few of what Mr. Bush called "discerning Democrats.'' But each of those groups, as you might imagine, has an agenda of its own. And while the President appealed to all of them during the campaign, he was careful not to say what his priorities are, and what issues he will pursue first.

So the mandate the president talks about appears to be a far more general one -- the electoral legitimacy to pursue the domestic plan he discussed at such length in his stump speeches across the country. It starts with medical liability reform -- caps on legal judgments -- and moves quickly toward the creation of private account options for a portion of Social Security and tax simplification. But there are constraints on Mr. Bush, mostly fiscal constraints. The president has never said, for example, how he would pay for his social security plans, which would cost an estimated at $1 trilltion to $2 trillion over 10 years, depending on whose estimates you believe. In a time of huge deficits, Mr. Bush must devise a plan that doesn't make some of his other constituencies scream that their budgets are being cut to pay for the remaking of the social security system.

Q: The moderate Republicans stood side by side with the president during his campaign. Do the moderates' agenda and the president's priorities coincide perfectly? What are the issues we can expect moderate Congressional Republicans and the White House to collaborate on? Where might they diverge?

The first big test will come when the President has to make major nominations, presumably including a Supreme Court justice or two. The moderates will be urging someone who will not prompt a huge ideological fight. But when Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said last week that the Senate would probably not confirm a Supreme Court nominee who favored outlawing abortion, the conservatives tried to block him from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Senator Specter said later he was describing a political fact of life -- that Democrats could filibuster until a nomination died -- rather than his own personal view.)

The Specter controversy was an early sign of what may be the battle to come -- a battle for control of the social agenda of a victorious Republican party. And on this the President has not fully declared himself. So everyone is looking for early indicators. If Chief Justice William Rehnquist resigns, for example, Mr. Bush could fill his post with someone who represents the views of the social conservatives -- Justices Scalia and Thomas are often mentioned -- or he could reach for a moderate and try to avoid an early fight with moderates in his own party.

On the other hand, you can expect plenty of moderate Republican cooperation on Social Security and education, and probably on the Iraq war. And with Republicans more firmly in control of the House and Senate, the President doesn't have to worry about a constant stream of Congressional investigations into the decisions that led to the Iraqi insurgency, or other troublesome topics.

Q: From your reporting, does it seem the President is concerned about the image of the US in the eyes of the world? What can we expect in the way of diplomatic initiatives during the second Bush term?

The president is concerned, and in recent times we have seen him embrace allies and others in the management of the Iranian and North Korean nuclear crises. But he has also made it clear in his campaign speeches that he never plans to let diplomatic niceties affect a decision that he believes is fundamental to American security. So in the second term, he has to decide what kind of balance he can strike.

Again, look for the early indicators. If the President agrees with the Europeans to give the Iranians more time to allay suspicions that they are building a bomb, or tolerates a slow-as-you-go approach with North Korea (which is estimated by the C.I.A. to have at least two nuclear weapons, with more under way), then it will be clear that he is committed to a more inclusive, diplomatic approach than he pursued in the run-up to Iraq. If, on the other hand, he speeds toward sanctions, presses for regime change, then it will be clear that the hawks in the adminstration won out. It's simply too early to know, partly because the tone will be influenced by the new players in the new term -- perhaps including a new Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.

There's one more indicator to watch: Public diplomacy. The president has been urged over the past two years to do a far better job of explaining America's positions to the world, particularly to the Islamic world. Yet the State Department's office of public diplomacy is widely judged as a failure, and the White House ignored the recommendation of one of its own commissions to create a government-wide coordinator of public diplomacy, among other recommendations. If the Administration begins to take up some of the recommendations in that report, it may be a sign that Mr. Bush has decided that the United States needs a new approach.

[ Election 2004 Homepage ]