What To Expect

By David Beckwith

George Bush's last and greatest mission has now been defined: he is charged with taking command of the Reagan Revolution, adjusting its course a bit, and guiding it safely into the 1990s.

After his victory on Tuesday, which as recently as this summer seemed beyond his grasp, the man who has spent most of his career as a supporting player now has the chance to put his name on an era. The beginning of the decade that will end the century is destined to become known as the Bush years. The new President enters office with no clear mandate for imposing the tough solutions that will be necessary to tackle the nation's festering budget crisis. Nor has he propounded a vision for fin-de-siecle America or for a world that is moving beyond the cold war. Nevertheless, he won the 1988 election with a toughness that surprised even his friends, and now he faces the opportunity and the challenge of serving as the nation's 41st President.

Following Ronald Reagan would present a daunting challenge to a recognized political giant, and Bush is certainly not that. Although he exceeded expectations yet again with his victory this week, Bush continues to be underestimated. He did not really win, the arguments go; he merely accepted the fruits of an inept Democratic campaign. Alternatively, it will be said that any Republican would have prevailed given the health of the economy. And then there is the argument that his artful handlers tricked the gullible voters with phony issues like crime and patriotism. Public resentment over that chicanery will soon overtake him. Congress will aggravate the hangover, making Bush pay dearly for his negative campaign.

These lines of reasoning have so lowered expectations for the Bush presidency that some Washington insiders are predicting the briefest honeymoon in history, a gridlock of indecision, even the inevitability of a one-term presidency. In short, President-elect Bush appears perfectly positioned to exceed expectations yet again.

Most Administrations enter office promising a raft of new faces and a basketful of policy initiatives. As the first sitting Vice President to be elected since Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson, Bush offers mostly continuity. His campaign produced enough new ideas to fill a 347-page campaign booklet. But the proposals, with the notable exception of a few tax-cutting ideas, were created more in response to political pressures than out of personal convictions.

George Bush does not have a deeply held personal agenda. He has few strong ideological or intellectual beliefs at all, other than a basic decency, patriotism and desire for people to be accommodating. A stark example: Bush was torn this fall when Congress debated a federal requirement that there be a seven-day waiting period before someone could purchase a handgun, a provision supported by many law-enforcement officials. "I wish the police chiefs and the gun owners could figure out a compromise," he lamented in an off moment. "I'm for both sides."

Nor does Bush have a keen intellect or a mind that is adept at placing events and challenges within a conceptual framework. He is smart and dogged in sorting through information, but he has never been known for imaginative ideas, probing insights or creative brilliance. Forty years ago, as he walked with a friend across the Yale campus to be inducted into Phi Beta Kappa, Bush volunteered that he was not a real intellectual. He prides himself on being a practical man, a problem solver, a bit of an overachiever. Some friends say his most notable trait is his persistence. He had been running for President for 20 years.

Intellectual brilliance, of course, is hardly a requirement in politics: Nixon and Carter were among the most intelligent of modern Presidents, and Reagan the least. Dukakis demonstrated that a brainy campaign run by the best and brightest minds is capable of badly misreading the issues that matter to Americans.

Bush's greatest political strength is his fascination with people. He quizzes casual acquaintances about their families and interests, and seems ; interested in their replies. He stays in regular touch with so many friends that two aides are occupied nearly full-time monitoring their advice and greetings. As President, he will not hole up, Nixon-style, and lose touch with the outside world.

But Bush's sociable and humane instinct has a flip side: he often receives conflicting advice and he hates to disappoint friends. This can cause him to be indecisive and tentative in asserting his views, a trait that is exacerbated by his inherent cautious nature and his lack of ideological commitments.

The President-elect has also been excessively loyal to associates who outlive their political usefulness. A case in point is Don Gregg, his national-security adviser, whom Bush declined to fire when he became enmeshed in allegations about illegal aid to the contras. During the campaign Bush stoutly defended a host of controversial Administration figures -- Ray Donovan, Robert Bork, Oliver North, Ed Meese, Don Regan, John Poindexter. It may have been sound politics, but it hints that Bush may be no better than Reagan at firing people.

Finally, Bush tends to lose concentration at times when he cannot be convinced his attention is required. Aides say that trait explains such "abnormalities" as his shockingly inert role in the Iran-contra affair. It also accounts, they say, for the marked improvement in his speaking style between the middle primaries, when Bush was not fully involved in political theater, and the postconvention period, when he appreciated that the stakes were high.

What this all means is that Bush needs to be handled. He will be far more engaged and active than the passive Reagan, who was content to let others control details under his broad guidelines. Bush awakens early, starts working and reading almost immediately, and generates a prodigious number of memos, questions and ideas. But he requires strong staffers whom he trusts and who can help shape his agenda for him.

After seeing aides take credit for much of Reagan's success, however, Bush is determined not to be similarly emasculated in his presidency -- even if some of the key offenders are now moving into his own Administration. In recent weeks Bush has become increasingly frustrated by stories that portrayed every campaign success as a product of his handlers' acuity. Bush's eldest son, George W., was installed in a central office at campaign headquarters in part to keep a watchful eye on Bush's effective, but self-congratulatory, hired guns. At least two key aides believe Dan Quayle will be Vice President because Bush insisted on making the choice totally on his own so that his staffers could not claim they selected, engineered or vetoed any candidates themselves. The result of that preoccupation was that Bush operated in total secrecy, and it led to a near disaster.

Bush will have trusted confidants in top Cabinet positions, including James Baker at State and probably Nicholas Brady at Treasury. As in most recent Administrations, the key appointment will be the White House chief of staff. Craig Fuller, 37, Bush's vice-presidential chief of staff, performed nearly flawlessly at Bush's side during the campaign, demonstrating a surefootedness and seasoning that belies his age. But Bush has repeatedly promised new faces. If he opts for a fresh look, New Hampshire Governor John Sununu could supervise the White House staff.

As the Quayle selection underscores, Bush values loyalty more than brilliance. He is not comfortable with either ideologues or intellectuals, preferring the company of achievers like himself, many of them from the business world. Dole or Kemp would have challenged Bush, causing him constant worry, while Quayle promised to be a team player, a trustworthy subordinate, as Bush was to Reagan. Similarly, Bush may consult strong-willed and brilliant people such as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Henry Kissinger, but they will not have key roles in the Bush Administration.

Managing the human aspect of the Reagan continuity looms as one of Bush's earliest problems. Many Reagan appointees want to move up in the new Administration. Yet Bush has more personal friends and acquaintances than any other political figure in recent memory, and members of his well-tuned campaign staff understandably expect good government jobs. How Bush resolves the O'Hare-style gridlock over appointments will be an early test of his administrative skills.

More important, to avoid serious problems later, this next President will have to move quickly to make peace with Congress. Enormous budget problems, escalating constantly, promise to bedevil Bush each year. The first major stylistic difference between Reagan and Bush will probably be evident in relations with Capitol Hill. While Reagan happily took on the Democrats, trying to eke out progress via confrontation, Bush prefers conciliation. Some Bush insiders predict a major outreach to congressional leaders almost immediately, an attempt to establish an era of good feelings with a bipartisan consensus on a problem posing a serious threat to the country.

It will not be easy. Candidate Bush boxed himself in by ruling out new taxes, Social Security cuts and any weakening of defense. To even approach his balanced-budget intentions by the end of his first term, President Bush will need good luck, continued economic growth, and plenty of help from a cooperative Congress. But some Democratic leaders, even while liking Bush personally, are determined to assert their own agenda in the face of what they sense to be a weaker personality moving into the White House. Bush may get little help, even a bit of sabotage, from his own party's Senate minority leader, Robert Dole.

Nevertheless, a Bush peace initiative would have a chance. His stump speech avoided personal attacks on Hill leaders. When Dukakis started scoring heavily on Ed Meese and sleaze, Bush countered with a call for an investigation of House Majority Leader Jim Wright, but quickly dropped the matter after Meese resigned. Similarly, even while his old Texas friend Lloyd Bentsen was attacking him daily on the stump, often in intimate terms, Bush avoided even a single personal criticism of the powerful Senate Finance Committee chairman throughout the entire campaign.

To the discomfort of conservative hard-liners, budget compromise appears inevitable. The Pentagon will need $475 billion in added spending over the next five years merely to finish projects started under Reagan, and that doesn't include various expensive weapons -- the Stealth bomber, Seawolf submarine, D5 Trident missile -- soon to be out of development and ready for production. Bailing out faltering savings and loan companies and updating antiquated nuclear-production plans may require $70 billion more in new funding. Bush himself, by James Baker's count, has proposed $40 billion in additional spending for new domestic initiatives, including more than $6 billion in oil and capital-gains tax breaks. Upward pressure on the deficit will be inexorable. A combination of new user fees, tax-rate adjustments and other masking devices is the likely route Bush will take around his no-new-tax campaign pledge. Richard Darman's first job if he becomes Office of Management and Budget Director will be to dream up a fresh euphemism for tax increases to replace the "revenue enhancers" of the early Reagan days.

Bush will face a far easier road in foreign affairs. With the exception of a deteriorating situation in Central America, the world map could hardly look friendlier. The Soviets appear eager to ease tensions, improve trade, talk arms control and relieve pressure on their disastrous domestic economy. Bush says he has learned the value of a hard-line, waiting approach from Reagan. He will be more eager than Reagan to exploit the new foreign policy trends in the Soviet Union, though he will be extremely cautious about destabilizing Eastern Europe and prompting a Soviet crackdown.

Of his recent foreign policy experiences, Bush is proudest of his role in encouraging U.S. allies in Western Europe to deploy Pershing missiles, a move that paved the way for this year's INF treaty, and of encouraging liberalization in Poland during his 1987 visit there. Conditions appear promising for still more progress in both arms control and liberty in Eastern Europe. If nothing goes badly wrong, Bush may have the good fortune to preside over major advances in human rights and reduction of conventional forces, chemical weapons and strategic arms.

With his wealth of experience, President Bush can be expected to manage the waning of the cold war with competence, if not brilliance. But despite his concern for foreign affairs, he has shown little interest in policy conceptualization or long-term strategy. Unlike Gorbachev, he does not seem to have wrestled with the question of power relationships in the world when the cold war is no longer the determining factor. As Gorbachev prepares for a world dominated by not only the two superpowers but also Japan, China and a consolidated Europe, Bush still seems focused on the U.S. role in countering the Soviets in regional conflicts.

Much of what was learned about Bush this year, as he emerged from self- imposed obscurity, is positive. His vice-presidential staff was not widely respected. Yet when quality became important, he showed he could locate and attract effective aides: his campaign apparatus was stocked with first-class talent. As the public became better acquainted with his personality and his sense of humor, they grew to like it, even viewing fondly his tendency toward malapropisms and scrambled syntax. In the end, despite talk of scripted events and control by handlers, the public got to know Bush and liked what it saw.

Reagan, the consummate professional actor, played his presidential part | with unswerving thespian skill, always on stage and in character. But Bush is clearly uncomfortable, even a bit sheepish, in the role of national figurehead. He cannot resist making fun of the process, tipping how silly he thinks it sometimes is, giving away the game. "Dukakis is an excellent debater," he declared seriously in early September, adding, "I'm lowering expectations here." At the debate, he started a response by saying, "Is this the time we unleash our one-liners?" When seated at a Pennsylvania G.O.P. phone bank for the benefit of photographers, Bush advised a startled callee that he was "just doing a little show-biz phoning here."

On one level this self-conscious perspective is reassuring. It demonstrates an ongoing sense of humor and a firm grasp of reality. But the trait also raises troubling questions. If Bush does not really believe in the role he has assumed, can public confidence in his leadership be nurtured? Will Bush's goof-prone speaking style continue to wear well, generating affection and sympathy, even in times of crisis? Or will his occasional verbal lapses accumulate and erode confidence in his abilities, much as Gerald Ford's stumbles and head bumps gradually gave him a bungler's image?

Equally important is Bush's relationship with the press. The President-elect is notoriously thin-skinned about criticism; he owns what CBS correspondent Eric Engberg calls "the biggest rabbit ears in the business." At the urging of his advisers, Bush gradually cut out press access during his campaign. The reporters responded by becoming first obnoxious, then surly and irritable. Reagan could get away with slighting the press, but it will be harder for Bush. He lacks the Teflon that Reagan generated with his avuncular, good- hearted manner. If Bush allows criticism to drive him into a beleaguered posture, as it did during the 1984 campaign, he and the media will have a long four years indeed.

At various stages in his career, the President-elect has shown different faces to the world, prompting some observers to wonder just which George Bush will show up for the Inauguration: The moderate, traditional Republican who ran in 1980, or the right-tilting conservative on the stump this year? The George-the-Ripper hardballer who upset an overconfident Dole and Dukakis, or the kinder, gentler George who claims to be haunted by hungry children? The answer, of course, is a bit of each: Bush will be determined to do whatever it takes to complete the mission.