SULLIVAN ON BUSH’S SECOND TERM

This is Andrew Sullivan’s preview of four more years under Bush:

BUSH'S SECOND TERM: I don't have much of an idea about what it would look like, what it would do or even who'd be in it. In my informal chats in DC since I got back, no one else does either. I assume Powell and Rumsfeld are gone; but I can't say I have a clue who would replace them. Rice? Hadley? Armitage? Bush never fires people and we have very little evidence of him replacing anyone. So it's tricky. I'd say Ashcroft stays; along with Rove and Card. But that's total guesswork. As for policy ... I'd love it if he made a real push for a flat tax, or social security privatization (or whatever euphemism they're going to come up with for it), but I don't believe he'll do anything that ambitious (or conservative). Second terms are not good opportunities to do that, especially since his first two years will be consumed with trying to find a way out of the morass in Iraq he has created these past eighteen months or so. Iran? I have zero confidence the administration will do anything that different from a hypothetical Kerry administration. NoKo? Ditto. Tax cuts? Bush can hold the line, since the true fiscal calamity won't happen till after he's left, and then he can blame his successors. Socially? With the war working everyone's nerves, he'll shift even more to his base. More anti-gay stuff, I presume; more government funds for fundies; a right-turn on immigration maybe. Excited yet? Me too.

Why would Bush fail to follow through on the ambitious agenda he laid out at the RNC? It wouldn’t help his legacy. It would make him unpopular with his friends in the Republican party. He won’t have to worry about re-election. Bush followed through on his campaign promises pretty well last time, even those, like steel tariffs and prescription drugs, that were probably election-year pandering he didn’t believe in. This time he has more political capital and can lay down what he really wants. If Bush doesn’t take the lead on North Korea or Iran, that’s fine by me: others are more threatened by them than we are. What conceivable indication is there of a right turn on immigration? Bush has risked alienating his base with pro-immigration noises. The RNC was full of positive talk about immigration. Bush has said what he believes. He’s pretty good about following through on his beliefs. If Sullivan predicted more budget-bloating, OK. But I can’t think of any plausible account of Bush’s character that would predict him turning lazy in his second term.