SASHINGTON--As
New York City prepares to roll out
the red carpet for participants in
this year's World Economic Forum,
events unfolding in the American
capital to Gotham's south will not
be far from anyone's mind.
The
death and destruction inflicted on New York
and Washington by the terrorist attacks of
Sept. 11 had the unintended consequence of
strengthening the position of the very nation
Osama bin Laden and his cohorts sought to weaken.
If the United States was the sole remaining
superpower before the events of Sept. 11, Washington's
war on terrorism, a largely unilateral action
in which America's allies--traditional and
new--are relegated to supporting roles, only
underscores US global predominance.
From Germany, Britain, and Russia to Japan
and the Philippines, the threat posed by al
Qaeda and like-minded terrorist groups is being
taken seriously, with law enforcement officials
scrambling to get on top of the situation lest
their countries become targets for future attacks.
It is a world few could have imagined only
a few months ago, and one which is likely to
be with us for a long time.
The Bush administration's war on terrorism
has also reshuffled the deck of political movers
and shakers in Washington. After staggering
into the White House a year ago on the heels
of a close and disputed election, President
George W. Bush now bestrides the world stage
with the self-assurance of a seasoned statesman.
His determination to punish those responsible
for the mayhem of Sept. 11, and to prevent
future attacks, has given him approval ratings
of which politicians can only dream. But 90
percent approval ratings are not the stuff
of permanence. Traditional political divisions
will resurface in this year of mid-term elections.
And if Bush the Younger has any doubts about
the ephemeral and fickle nature of political
popularity, the fate of Bush the Elder, who
went from 90 percent approval ratings in the
glow of the Gulf War to 38 percent of the popular
vote in his 1992 re-election bid, provides
for sober reflection. But for the moment, the
current commander in chief is riding high.
For security reasons, Vice President Dick
Cheney is rarely seen or heard. Yet, bad heart
and all, he remains actively engaged behind
the scenes in every key aspect of the administration's
domestic and foreign policies. Secretary of
State Colin Powell has found himself having
to take a back seat to Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, who has emerged as the administration's
most effective--and, at times, entertaining--spokesman
on the war on terrorism.
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose name was
formerly one mentioned in the most hallowed
of tones, came under criticism last year for
keeping interest rates too high, as the nation
headed toward a recession last spring. Greenspan
has since slashed interest raters with reckless
abandon, but the economy has yet to respond
in the hoped-for fashion. Still, Greenspan
remains a towering figure in Washington.
Meanwhile, the war on terrorism has consigned
many Bush administration cabinet officials
to relative obscurity. The one exception is
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's frequent
and public spats with Congressional Republicans
over everything from global warming to the
administration's economic stimulus package.
On Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle has by far the trickiest role to play.
With a shaky one-vote majority, and several
Democratic senators up for re-election this
November in states that Bush won in 2000 by
substantial margins, Daschle has to be careful
that he doesn't lead where some of his Democratic
colleagues dare not follow. Though he is a
skilled behind-the-scenes operator, Daschle
has not been an imposing presence in front
of a microphone. With the nation at war, he
and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt must
find ways to challenge the Bush administration,
without being seen as undercutting the commander
in chief. The jury is still out on how both
men are performing this task.
And then there's Enron. It is too early to
tell whether the financial scandal surrounding
the company will become a political scandal.
Congressional investigations are under way
by the truckload, and the resulting hearings
will not be pretty affairs. But if it does
nothing else, the spectacular collapse of once-mighty
Enron will breathe new life into the discussion
over corporate governance. Among the company's
many transgressions was its callous disregard
for its own rank-and-file employees, most of
whom saw their retirement savings wiped out
by the company's irresponsible actions.
In the wake of the Enron fiasco, it has been
suggested that the two major political parties
step up their efforts to monitor the conduct
of their donors. For Republicans, with their
close ties to the corporate world, this means
paying better attention to those writing the
checks. How many politicians (from both parties)
who accepted money from Enron actually knew
what business the company was in? And just
as Republicans should be more circumspect with
corporate donors, Democrats should keep closer
tabs on the source of their donations from
organized labor lest they be tainted by misappropriated
union dues.
Supporters of campaign finance reform see
the Enron debacle as proof that their cause
is just. Yet it bears repeating that the current
system, which both donors and recipients despise,
is itself the result of campaign finance reform
carried out more than a quarter-of-a-century
ago in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Drawing
the right conclusions from fiascoes is never
easy.
Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the
Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia.
|
