The Presidency That Wasn't

WHO would have imagined that the most offensive thing about President Bush would be something he has not done?

Even if Bush blunders countless domestic and foreign issues, that damage will be only temporary. The damage he does to the institution of the presidency--by virtue of his take-no-chances management style--will be far more long-reaching.

Historian Clinton Rossiter noted that the president must wear many hats, and several of them seem to fit Bush comfortably. The former vice-president has more than fulfilled his duties as chief diplomat, entertaining foreign dignitaries by the dozen, at formal dinners and baseball games.

Bush has also carried out most of his functions as head of state. He threw out the first pitch at the Baltimore Orioles home opener, and sent a telegram to Harvard's hockey star Lane MacDonald on winning the prestigious Hobey Baker Award.

Bush has shown adeptness at other duties, as well. The former navy pilot has great potential as commander-in-chief, and he will surely enjoy his duties as the leader of his party.

BUT during the last two and a half months, Bush has not fulfilled his duties as the nation's top policy-maker. Instead of offering a broad platform, or even urging specific legislation, Bush has limited himself to managerial jobs, reacting to specific problems but rarely taking the initiative.

Bush's reaction to the catastrophic Alaskan oil spill two weeks ago is a prime example. After the spill, the White House expressed some sympathy, but seemed unwilling to act in any manner. Instead of offering federal assistance, or even using the spill as a chance to speak out on a disturbing ecological issue, Bush decided to let Exxon handle the cleanup and said nothing more.

Consider, too, Bush's decisions surrounding the import of automatic weapons. Again, drug shootings had become a major public issue, with Washington--Bush's place of residence--making headlines as the nation's murder capital. Bush balked on using the issue as an opportunity to make a public stand, and only issued his mediocre response--a temporary ban on some automatic weapons after considerable public uproar.

And Bush's handling of the budget also reeks of this reactive, incapacitated management style. Bush did present, as he promised, a reasonable budget, only he let Congress do the work of filling in the blanks. Rather than be at the front of lawmaking action, Bush was content to leave himself out of the process.

ALL this is fine if a president's only goal is to stay in office, and perhaps that is all Bush wants. Three years from now, Bush no doubt will have succeeded in not alienating any of his supporters. If the economy does not suddenly meet some demise, he will likely win reelection.

But such a pattern is not in the best interests of the nation. The president much be more than just a city manager who fixes problems as they come along and smiles nicely for the cameras.

The public needs an individual who will seek out the underlying problems in society, and provide initiatives that will offer long-term improvements for society. Nearly every successful president, from Jefferson to Roosevelt, has met that challenge. Most of the others have at least addressed such concerns.

Bush, however, seems content to ignore any pressing long-term issues in order to remain in office. He seems more intent on winning reelection than on improving American society.

If he is successful, much as his predecessor was, then such a sluggish model might well become the rule. Fearing voter backlash, future presidents and their parties might stagnate, balking at making bold policy suggestions.

If so, Bush's better-safe-than-sorry leadership style might become a permanent fixture at the White House. Although the voters may not realize it, that could be more damaging than any blundered piece of legislation.