Where's the beef?(reelection campaign of President George W. Bush)

THE negative side of the Bush campaign seems to be shaping up reasonably well. Republicans seem to be reaching the conclusion that they should attack Kerry less as a flip-flopper than as a liberal: Nobody is scared of flip-floppers' winning high office. They seem also to see that they can call Kerry's values into question by attacking his policies rather than his character. Republicans will criticize Kerry as a man who will make it harder to fight terrorism, will raise taxes, and will happily stand by as the courts deform marriage. We would change the negative strategy at the margins. The critique of Kerry on the war will not work, in our judgment, unless it becomes a critique of his entire party. But the fundamentals of the campaign against Kerry are sound.

Where, meanwhile, is the positive, substantive side of the campaign? People are noticing that the president has not presented an agenda for his second term should he be re-elected. He is being advised to unveil such an agenda on the theory that it could be attractive to voters. That is true. But it is also true that the president owes voters an explanation of what he wants to do in his second term before he asks us to support him. How does he intend to advance conservative goals during the next four years? Presumably he does not want his administration to drift the way second terms often do. But if he does not campaign on a conservative agenda now, what chance does he have of successfully acting on it later?

According to reports, Bush may announce some initiatives imminently. We will measure the scope of his ambition by whether he addresses Social Security. Nowhere is presidential leadership more needed. Reform is going to be extremely difficult, and the president needs a mandate for it. It could also provide him with a campaign theme: securing the future. The president's conservative policies, from winning the peace in Iraq to promoting health savings accounts, all fit under ...