On May 30, a potential change of directions seemed to be in the offing
when the President hired Henry Paulson as his third secretary of the
Treasury. Paulson differed from his disenchanted predecessors--Paul
O’Neill of Alcoa Aluminum and John Snow of CSX Railroad--in his
long experience as a Wall Street insider and in his opposition to the
debunkers of global warming and environmental deterioration.
When he appointed O’Neill, the President explained that “The
secretary of treasury is the chief financial officer of our nation,
the successor to Alexander Hamilton. I found such a man in Paul O’Neill.” Of
Snow, Mr. Bush predicted two years later: “He’ll be a superb
member of my cabinet.” Paulson got almost the same advance praise: “He’ll
be a superb addition to my Cabinet.”
Yet, both O’Neill and Snow were never seriously included in the President’s
inner policy-making circle that appears to be dominated by Vice President Cheney.
When O’Neill and Snow got fed up with having to serve as the administration’s
cheerleaders, they quit.
When Paulson reluctantly accepted the Treasury post, he gave up his annual compensation
package of $38.8 million as chairman of the global investment firm Goldman Sachs.
Paulson donated $2,000 for the President’s re-election but had previously
contributed to the campaigns of Democrat Bill Bradley and Republican John McCain.
More importantly yet, Paulson is nationally known as an enthusiastic conservationist
and the outgoing chairman of the Nature Conservancy, a well-endowed environmental
advocacy group with 3,200 employees of whom 720 are scientists. Its main mission
is “to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to
survive.” According to the Washington Post, Paulson and his wife gave $980,000
to the League of Conservation Voters, an organization that accused Mr. Bush of “compiling
the worst environmental record of any president in the history of the United
States.”
It will be fascinating to watch whether, as a “key adviser” to the
President, Paulson will be as candid as in the past about his environmental positions,
or if he will keep them for himself--or if, like O’Neill and Snow, he will
simply be expected to promote the President’s economic agenda.
After Mr. Bush appointed Christine Whitman head of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), she felt compelled to comply with his wishes to take all references
to global warming out of a government-commissioned report because he preferred
a study of the American Petroleum Institute that denied any existence of global
warming. Whitman also was not allowed to tell the public what the EPA knew about
the very high levels of asbestos and dioxins released by the destruction of the
World Trade Center. Dismayed by the so-called "social fundamentalists" trying
to purge the Republican Party of its moderates--herself included--and persistently
muzzled by White House directives on EPA policies, Whitman resigned after only
two years on the job.
As Paulson joins the Bush team, he might also ponder the fate of Colin Powell
as secretary of state. An experienced army general, national security adviser,
and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President allowed him almost no
influence on high-profile issues. Mr. Bush rather preferred to take his cues
from a young academic, Condoleezza Rice, who had virtually no experience in the
Middle East and little diplomatic finesse.
The President and his steadfast backers demand fidelity to their core principles,
such as unilateralism in foreign affairs, tax cuts for economic growth, faith-based
initiatives, resistance to undesirable scientific findings, and conservative
family values. Mr. Bush has often been characterized as suspicious of, and indifferent
to, alternative views.
Recent reports, however, claim that he now listens more often to dissent from
White House insiders and trusted Republicans. Persuading him to change core policies,
however, seems to remain an unwelcome effort unlikely to succeed. Does the new
treasury secretary have a chance to alter the President’s rigid proclivities?