IT’S TIME FOR PRESIDENT BUSH to think about a third term. No, he doesn’t need to overturn the Constitution. He can start the equivalent of his third term now, by filling his presidential staff and cabinet with new faces–or old faces in new positions–and by concentrating on new or forgotten initiatives. The goal: rejuvenation of his presidency by shocking the media and political community with a sweeping overhaul of his administration. The impact would be enormous because it’s exactly what his foes have been demanding and exactly what he is not expected to do. And it would give him a chance to escape the political doldrums that may otherwise doom his presidency through its final 34 months.
Only a few months ago, it appeared the Bush administration didn’t need emergency resuscitation. True, Bush had suffered a year of serious troubles–failure of Social Security reform, Katrina, Harriet Miers, Iraq–following his second inauguration. Yet he emerged bruised but politically alive. He’d even won the confirmation of two conservative Supreme Court justices.
Then he was belted with a new round of reversals. His State of the Union address was uninspiring, the Dubai ports deal had to be nixed, and his proposed spending cuts were going nowhere. This time the fallout was worse for Bush. Republican unity, so important to his past success, dissolved as congressional Republicans began criticizing the White House. And Iraq was again a political problem. Even several top Bush aides now suspect an infusion of fresh talent could liven up the administration.
A broad transformation, playing on the media’s overreaction whenever surprised, would do more. Reporters would be forced to write stories about new officials, cover confirmation hearings, show up at press conferences they might have ignored, assess new policies, and–this is most important–take a fresh look at the president. It would be like the beginning of a new presidential term. Sure, the press and politicians would be cynical about Bush’s bold moves, especially since he wouldn’t be uprooting any policy or hiring Bush critics. In truth, there would be a large element of smoke and mirrors in his actions. The trade-off is that Bush might revitalize his presidency.
A sweeping overhaul on a smaller scale has worked before. In one swoop in 1975, President Ford replaced Defense Secretary James Schlesinger with Donald Rumsfeld, made Dick Cheney chief of staff, appointed George H.W. Bush as CIA director in place of William Colby, and stripped Secretary of State Henry Kissinger of his second post as national security adviser, installing Brent Scowcroft. These surprising and dramatic steps strengthened a weak Ford presidency. President Carter tried something similar in 1979 when his presidency was at a low point. But the overhaul was handled clumsily. Carter appeared to act arbitrarily and his presidency never recovered.
Bush’s first task must be to jettison his admirable but unrealistic sense of loyalty. Unlike other presidents, he reciprocates the loyalty of his aides. But for the good of his presidency, he must let some of them go, regardless of whether they deserve firing.
The president’s most spectacular move would be to anoint a presidential successor. This would require Vice President Cheney to resign. His replacement? Condoleezza Rice, whom Bush regards highly. Her replacement? Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, whose Bush-like views on Iraq and the war on terror have made him a pariah in the Democratic caucus.
Cheney would probably be happy to step down and return to Wyoming. But it would make more sense for him to move to the Pentagon to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense secretary, a job Cheney held during the elder Bush’s administration. The Senate confirmation hearing for Cheney alone would produce political fireworks and attract incredible attention. At Treasury, Bush has a perfect replacement for John Snow, someone he already knows. That’s Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of Bush’s council of economic advisers and currently dean of Columbia’s business school. He is in sync with Bush ideologically and has the added value of being respected on Wall Street.
With these changes, Bush would have brought in new Cabinet chiefs at three of the big four agencies. Only Justice would be untouched, but it might be too much for the president to force his friend Alberto Gonzales out as attorney general.
At the White House, highly visible changes would be required, starting with the most visible post of all besides the presidency–press secretary. Dan Senor, a Republican and former spokesman for Paul Bremer in Iraq, would be a perfect successor to Scott McClellan. He would be an articulate and forceful defender of Bush on Iraq. And if not Senor, then presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, who always does well in TV interviews.
As a new chief of staff, Bush’s pal from his Harvard Business School days, Al Hubbard, could replace Andy Card. Hubbard is miscast as top White House economic adviser. To replace him, Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute would fit. He has close ties to the Bush White House. There’s also a natural choice for national security adviser to replace Stephen Hadley. It’s Zalmay Khalilzad, the tough-minded ambassador to Iraq. Once a permanent government is installed there, he could be summoned home.
The trickiest issue is how to handle Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff and political adviser. He is the closest thing to indispensable–on policy as well as politics–at the White House. But any overhaul that didn’t involve him would run the risk of not being taken seriously. The solution is to send Rove to the Republican National Committee as chairman and bring the current chairman, Ken Mehlman, back to the president’s staff as communications chief. The president lauded Rove as “the architect” of his reelection in 2004. Now he could be the architect of a Republican comeback in 2006. Mehlman would sharpen the president’s communication operation. He and Rove would work together, as they do now.
New faces and personnel shifts are necessary but not sufficient to produce the aura of a new presidential term. Major policy initiatives are required, too. And there are plenty to choose from. For one, Bush could mount a fresh crusade for confirmation of federal appeals court judges: 11 of them are waiting in the wings. And there’s always taxes, a hardy GOP perennial. Bush’s tax reform commission was a bust, but that shouldn’t stop him from proposing significant tax reforms and cuts. He doesn’t have to win congressional approval. To revive his presidency, at this point he only need focus on them.
In foreign policy, there’s a broad new alliance waiting to be packaged, now that NATO has lost its rationale. Suggested by Tom Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute, it would bring together four antiterrorist, free-market democracies, all concerned about the growing power of China. They are the U.K., India, Japan and the U.S.
The new but still conservative look of the Bush administration and its new policy emphasis would thrill the base and perhaps independents as well. Should that lead to an unanticipated Republican victory in the midterm election in November, Bush would be empowered to return to old initiatives such as Social Security reform and his faith-based initiative.
Of course, there are risks and problems in trying to revitalize a flagging administration. The most worrisome risk is that Bush would look weak and desperate. Carter did in 1979 and became a laughingstock. That could happen to Bush. Also, it may be difficult to persuade outsiders to join what looks to them as a hopelessly lame-duck administration.
The president could lose a lot more than face. But the potential upside of a stunning facelift of his administration is great. It could make his presidency productive and enjoyable again rather than stymied and disheartened. Achieving the aura and feel of a new presidential term is not farfetched. Bush fooled everyone by becoming the president of big ideas and bold plans. He could fool them again.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard and author of Rebel in Chief, published last month by Crown Forum. This essay originally appeared in the March 20, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
