Tragedies transform Bush's presidency

BY DANIEL KAHN

President George W. Bush, DC '68, began the day that would forever change the trajectory of his presidency and the nation with a four-mile jog. As the sun rose on Tues., Sept. 11, the most pressing concern facing the president was the shrinking budget surplus and the prospect that he would have to dip into Social Security to pay for his education reform and defense packages. In a few short hours, everything changed.

ERIC DRAPER/NEWSMAKERS President George W. Bush, DC '68, aboard Air Force One, tours the Pentagon over Washinton, D.C. following the attacks on Tues., Sept. 11.

In the week and a half following the audacious attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that left over 6,500 people dead or missing, the president's standing at home and abroad has been transformed. He now leads the nation and a growing list of allies in an international crusade against global terrorism. "We are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom," he said on Thurs., Sept. 20 to a joint session of Congress.

As quickly as a world at peace has changed into a world at war, the president's popularity has skyrocketed. According to the Gallup Poll News Service, Bush's approval ratings have shot up from 51 percent before the attacks to an astounding 86 percent, the fourth-highest approval rating in Gallup history. The 35-percent jump is the highest in Gallup history.

Academics agree that the threat to national security has compelled millions of Americans who would not normally support Bush to rally behind the flag—both literally and figuratively.

"Since World War II, the public has decided to support the president strongly when they thought important national security interest was at stake," Charles Sorrels, who teaches the Yale College seminar Presidents and Crises, said.

"The reason that the president is so high in the polls right now is that the prominent, salient issue is one of wide agreement," George C. Edwards III, founder and former Director of the Center for Presidential Studies, and author of the most widely used undergraduate presidential textbook, observed at a Jonathan Edwards Master's Tea on Thurs., Sept. 20.

Although Americans as a group readily disagree on everything from baseball teams to stem cell research, they have united behind the president, the now nationally renowned mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, and the thousands of emergency workers who sift through the destruction day in and day out. Flags can be seen on nearly every street corner in New York. Signs of American patriotism are stronger now than they have been on most Fourths of July.

John Krasno, a political science lecturer who teaches "Public Opinion," sees a quantifiable social pattern of behavior behind these enthusiastic signs of patriotism. "There is a well-known phenomenon called the `rally around the flag effect,' and the president is called on to be the flag," he said.

While some fear the recent explosion of super-patriotism, many deem it a critical, necessary characteristic of a nation at war. "While it is unfortunate that our nation has had to suffer an horrendous tragedy in order for the president to garner such broad support, the fact remains that the people of the United States have come to the realization that victory, in the battle ahead, can only come by way of a unified front," Todd Abrajado, chairman of the Yale College Republicans, said.

Like the public, politicians have put aside their usual divisions to come together in support of the president. A recent piece of legislation authorizing $40 billion in emergency spending passed Congress unanimously last week. Perhaps more remarkably, a resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against those responsible for the terrorist attacks passed the Senate 98-0 and the House 420-1. While this legislation falls short of a declaration of war, it authorizes the president—for all intents and purposes—to determine the scope and duration of a war on terrorists and their confederates, a power reserved for Congress under the Constitution.

Politicians of both parties had only praise for Bush following his Thursday address. "We want President Bush to know—we want the world to know—that he can depend on us," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said. "We are resolved to work together, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans."

"We want enemies and the whole world and all our citizens to know that America speaks tonight with one voice," Representative Richard Gephardt (D-MO), the Democratic leader, said. Connecticut's own Senator Joseph Lieberman, MC '64, gave the president high marks, declaring, "If I were a terrorist tonight, I would not go to sleep feeling very comfortable about my security."

Edwards feels this spirit of bipartisanship will persist. "Many of the contentious issues are being put on the back burner," he said. "It also means some of the more important [domesic] issues we have been dealing [for months] with will not be resolved this year."

Since that fateful morning, work unrelated to the attacks has halted almost completely. "There is no doubt that he himself said that [terrorism] is the focus of his administration," Edwards said.

Reminiscent of his father's hurried state-craft following the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the younger Bush has spent most of his time since the attack meeting in person or on the phone with foreign leaders in an attempt to quickly solidify a broad coalition of allies with whom the U.S. might mount counterstrikes against terrorists worldwide.

"I'm heartened by the fact that the response to this event has been measured and a lot of time has been taken to talk to all of our allies around the world," President Richard Levin, GRD '74, said. "Instead of reacting immediately and unilaterally, we've been patient and are building a worldwide commitment to counter terrorism."

In his address Thursday, Bush made the choice clear: "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." But unlike the coalition-supported war against Iraq 10 years ago, this "lengthy campaign" would include more than pinpoint air strikes and a 100-hour ground war. "We will direct every resource at our command, every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war to the disruption and defeat of the global terror network," he said. It was unclear whether "every weapon of war" meant nuclear weapons.

With the marshalling of a large number of land, air, and naval forces within striking distance of Afghanistan coupled with Bush's admonition to the Pentagon to "be ready," a military conflict involving ground forces seems imminent. Nevertheless, in a recent Gallup poll, 80 percent supported war even if it meant a ground invasion. Of those polled, 77 percent would support war even if it meant instituting the draft, and 65 percent would support war even if 1,000 Americans were killed in combat. The hard line Bush has taken, which seems to be in tune with the public at large, may aid his popularity. However, Krasno stated that the administration's new stance has not had time to affect Bush's popularity.

Americans historically have reacted especially strongly to provocations. During the blockade of Berlin in 1948, the American public supported war much more strongly than people in western European nations. "In the case of Khrushchev's threats to western rights in West Berlin, there was incredible support for taking a strong position, even if it meant nuclear war," Sorrels said.

History smiles upon presidents who have led the nation through dangerous times. According to a C-SPAN ranking, the three highest-rated presidents led the U.S. during wartime—Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington. Former President George H. W. Bush, DC '48, enjoyed the highest Gallup approval rating ever, at 89 percent, at the beginning of the Persian Gulf conflict. Indeed, a testament to public support, no incumbent has ever been defeated for the presidency during a time of war.

As the nation enters the long twilight struggle against global terror, when success will not be measured by beaches stormed or islands taken, and the threat to American lives—both uniformed and civilian—remains present, can the president sustain the popularity he has achieved? Can Bush earn through the impending conflict sustained popularity like that of Washington and Roosevelt? Will bipartisan support last only as long as an armed conflict remains? Or will America's current desire for combat, and with it presidential support, wane?

Both Krasno, the public opinion professor, and Edwards, the presidential historian, agree that the Bush's most difficult challenge lies ahead. "The first [reaction from Bush] was the compassion," Edwards said. "The second was the reassurance. The third was the resolve. Now, you've got the difficult part, because in the resolve part, we raised the stakes."

Krasno added, "He has six months or so when he has close to a blank check. Five years from now, if we are involved in a long war in Afghanistan, [support will be] flagging."

Sorrels believes that Sept. 11 will carry greater significance. "Given the fact that this has struck home with the American people more than any event since Pearl Harbor, it would seem that very strong support for the president in his efforts to root out the terrorist networks and bring those responsible for this is very likely in the long haul," he said. 

Matthew Ferraro contributed to this article.

Back to News...