Significant Decisions
for President Bush in 2003 (1/1/03)
by Dean Hartwell
Like any year,
2003 will have its share of newsworthy events.
Whether or not we will recall 2003 several years from
now depends upon its significant events.
An event is newsworthy if enough people pay attention to
it. For example, the sniper shootings in the
Washington, D.C. area attracted widespread publicity
throughout the nation.
An event is significant if it or the decisions that
create it influences policies or public opinion.
So far, the shootings have not influenced our leaders to
pass new gun legislation. For that reason, the
event does not reach the level of significant, at least
not yet.
What significant events can we expect to see in 2003?
With the “War on Terrorism” and the possibility of
hostilities on other fronts, President Bush will have to
make decisions on how the United States should resolve
these disputes. Already he has sent thousands of
troops for deployment in the Persian Gulf in preparation
for likely war with Iraq. North Korea, meanwhile,
has announced that it has resumed a nuclear weapons
program to the shock of the Bush Administration.
At some point he will have to explain why he has sent
troops to the Persian Gulf and none to North Korea,
which presents a greater threat than Iraq. Whether
Bush chooses in each case the usual United States policy
of confrontation, the use of force, or a new policy of
diplomacy, his decision will cause events to happen and
set the tone for future administrations that will
inherit its consequences.
Back home, the likely war with Iraq and the federal
budget deficit will present the President with decisions
that will affect the nation. Bush’s tax cuts have
drained away revenues that would otherwise pay for war
and now they leave the President with a hard decision.
He could ignore the rising deficit and spend the United
States into further debt or he could reverse his policy
of tax cuts for the rich and work toward balancing the
budget. Either way, his decision will be
significant, especially to future generations who will
have to pay for the federal debt.
Given their preferences to retire during the term of a
Republican president and not to retire during an
election year, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and
Justice Sandra O’Connor may retire from the Supreme
Court in 2003. If so, President Bush will have two
appointments to make to the sharply divided high court.
Bush must decide whether he will keep his campaign
pledge of appointing justices like the far-right Antonin
Scalia or whether he will opt for a “stealth” candidate
like David Souter (whose liberal voting record stunned
Bush’s father). Regardless of the route he takes,
the persons he selects will make decisions affecting
many generations to come.
President Bush should consider the consequences to the
public when making these decisions, not his own
political agenda. If he can manage that, he will
make 2003 a year of great significance for the
betterment of the United States.