 ,
like most Americans, have been extraordinarily impressed with President
George W. Bush's prosecution of the war against the al Qaeda terrorists.
I think it is one of the great strengths of the American system of
government that we always seem to find the leader we need in times
of crisis. Based only on what we knew about them the day they took
office, who would have thought that Abraham Lincoln or Harry Truman
would turn out to be among our greatest wartime leaders?
I believe
that Bush eventually will join the pantheon of America's greatest
presidents. But knowing that should not make him complacent. After
all, his father prosecuted a highly successful war against Iraq
in 1991, but he was still abandoned by a plurality of voters in
1992. Similarly, Winston Churchill was rejected as prime minister
of England in 1945, despite being possibly the greatest wartime
leader in modern times.
What did in
both Churchill and Bush the elder was the economy. People tend to
vote their pocketbooks on Election Day, and they give precious little
credit for past accomplishments, especially in the area of national
security. One can lament this fact, but it stands nevertheless.
Churchill and Bush were defeated by poor economic conditions, regardless
of how successfully they may have prosecuted a war.
Right now,
Bush the younger is in a situation not very dissimilar to where
his father stood in 1991. He has enormous personal popularity but
a weak economy. The reality is that no matter how much people may
credit him for his actions as commander in chief, they could still
reject him in 2004 unless the economy is doing better.
Fortunately
for the younger Bush, he has more time than his father did to turn
things around before he must go before the voters again. But he
cannot waste the time he has, because it takes time to implement
economic policies and for them to impact the economy. What he does
this year could well determine his electoral success in 2004, given
the lags.
Bush would
help himself by expanding his universe of economic advisors. I do
not mean to slight his current advisors, whom I have great respect
for. I only suggest that bureaucratic, institutional, and political
constraints sometimes prevent a president from receiving the best
possible advice. He should consider following Ronald Reagan's example.
One of Reagan's
first actions as president was to establish an Economic Policy Advisory
Board comparable to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Several
times a year, it brought economic advisors from the private sector
into the White House to give him a broader perspective. These included
such luminaries as Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and Arthur Burns.
As Martin
Anderson relates in his 1998 book Revolution, this board
served a number of useful purposes. First, it allowed the president
to hear from economic advisors unencumbered by bureaucratic turf.
The treasury secretary or Office of Management and Budget director,
for example, necessarily must represent their respective agencies
and their myopic perspectives when advising the president. While
necessary, this can sometimes limit a president's perspective and
options.
According
to Anderson, one of the greatest virtues of Reagan's Economic Policy
Advisory Board was to encourage him to stick to his principles when
counseled otherwise by his own staff. It was a lot easier for Reagan
to oppose tax increases supported by his OMB director when he could
cite Nobel Prize winner Friedman against this position.
Outside economic
advisors also serve another useful purpose, which is to focus the
president's attention on the economy. After all, foreign and defense
policy matters are often more time sensitive, as they have been
since Sept. 11, and it is too easy to put off economic matters for
another day. Unless a president sets aside time just for economic
policy, especially in times like these, it can easily be put off
too long.
Bush would
benefit by having regular meetings with private economists. There
are any number with Republican/conservative credentials outside
the administration who would surely make themselves available if
asked.
These include
Hoover Institution scholars George Shultz, Michael Boskin, John
Cogan, Tom Sowell, and Annelise Anderson; Kevin Hassett and Jim
Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute; Martin Feldstein
and Robert Barro of Harvard; Gary Becker of the University of Chicago;
Walter Williams of George Mason University; Bob Bartley of The
Wall Street Journal; and business economists such as Larry Kudlow,
Arthur Laffer, Brian Wesbury, David Malpass, Alan Reynolds, Wayne
Angell, and David Hale, among others.
|
