Our transformed president

To say that President Bush has grown in office is an understatement his demeanor since Sept. 11 has exposed and that his State of the Union address demolished. Transformed would be a better description.

The most obvious manifestation of this transformation is his skill in public speaking. The nervous, tongue-tied speaker of the 2000 campaign and the early months in office has turned confident, forceful and at times eloquent. The growth that began one horrible day in September reached a new height Tuesday – few presidents have been able, with plain words and clear intent, to so forcefully remind Americans of the sacrifice freedom requires and the world of the American resolve that sustains it.

But Mr. Bush’s growth is about more than being able to competently deliver the work of expert speechwriters. His understanding of government’s role in the lives of citizens has matured, as has his view of this nation’s role in the world.

As a candidate and new president, Mr. Bush had a decidedly constrained worldview – the national interest was defined much more by trade than by human rights, nation-building was anathema. Now, his proudest accomplishment is the liberation of Afghanistan and the rebuilding of that nation so it can never again fall prey to a terrorizing regime his most urgent task.

The war on terrorism is the first of three “great goals” he described Tuesday and the naming of North Korea, Iran and Iraq as states that sponsor terrorism served not only as a needed reminder that the campaign will not end in Afghanistan, but also as an unambiguous signal that the days of narrow responses to specific attacks are over. “I will not wait on events” should send a chill though all regimes that now believe they can enable terrorism, either by acts of commission or omission, provided their fingerprints are not on the smoking gun.

His approach to domestic security, the second goal, also has evolved. Just last month, Mr. Bush insisted that he could not increase the limited money designated for homeland defense. The potential threats and the cost of needed precautions has increased, as have the financial burdens borne by state and local governments, as has the president’s understanding of the complex issues involved. His promise now to double spending on homeland security is based in large part on his acceptance of an argument he recently rejected – that spending to combat bio-terrorism and to improve security at airports, ports and borders will produce benefits in public health and in interdicting illegal drugs -demonstrates a commendable flexibility of thought.

Economic security, the third goal, was the spottiest part of his presentation, but there were signs of a broader perspective. Although he did not mention Enron by name, he did perform an abrupt about-face from his laissez-faire past: stronger government oversight of corporate accounting and tougher disclosure requirements; government safeguards for employee retirement plans; even a scolding to “corporate America” that is it “must be held to the highest standards of conduct.”

The spots that blemished the speech have a common source – excessive promises driven by party ideology. Mr. Bush simply cannot conduct an ongoing global campaign against terrorism, greatly increase spending on the military and on homeland security, expand health care and unemployment benefits, protect Social Security and Medicare, create a new corps of volunteer service, make his 10-year top-heavy tax cut permanent and, at the same time, promise budget deficits that are small and short-lived. But being president is, after all, a growth process.