KEY POINTS:
Stubbornness, as reflected in an unbending loyalty to his lieutenants, has been one of the hallmarks of the presidency of George W. Bush. Twice before, his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the architect of the calamitous war in Iraq, had offered his resignation. Twice, President Bush refused to let him leave. Yesterday, however, even before all the votes in the mid-term congressional elections had been counted, Mr Rumsfeld was gone. There was no more graphic commentary on the extent of the defeat suffered by the Republican Party which, for the first time since 1994, ceded control of the House of Representatives and, quite possibly, the Senate.
Mr Bush's significant gesture also raised the hope that the final two years of his presidency would not be dominated by policy gridlock and the politics of retribution and rancour. He has listened to the American people's expression of opposition to proceedings in Iraq and reacted. Will he now be able to work with the Democrats in Washington, just as he coped with that party's control of the Texas legislature during his stint as governor?
Some commentators doubt this, saying that, whatever Mr Bush promised, his time in the White House has been marked by bitterness and acrimony. Yet it is in the interests of neither the Republicans nor the Democrats for that to continue. Right now, the Republican candidate in the next presidential election, probably John McCain, faces defeat. The party must not only solve the Iraq puzzle but show itself to be more in tune with the moderate tendencies expressed in this vote. The re-election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California, the fruit of his embrace of environmental issues and centrist policies, offers a ready template.
The Democrats, for their part, cannot afford to alienate Americans by overplaying their hand, as the similarly empowered Republicans did in the lead-up to President Bill Clinton's 1996 election victory. They are well placed to secure the likes of an improved minimum wage. But they will have to be cautious in budget issues, most notably by doing nothing that could be construed as undermining the efforts of American troops in Iraq. The furore surrounding John Kerry's comment on soldiers and scholarship was further evidence of an ongoing, unshakeable patriotism.
The Democrats have, in fact, yet to define their policy on Iraq. They know there must be changes, probably involving a reduced troop commitment, but are not united on how extensive that should be. The most important initiative will probably not come from them but from the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group chaired by James Baker. This is due to be completed before the end of the year. However, its influence may be felt earlier because one of its authors is the new Defence Secretary, Robert Gates.
The United States political system is predicated on a system of checks and balances. This can fray when the party of the president dominates Congress. Arguably, excessive presidential power was a factor in America's unwitting involvement in Iraq. At its best, however, the system works effectively, with Congress able to limit or block presidential initiatives but not enforce a different agenda. This relies on a questioning House of Representatives and Senate usually, but not necessarily, controlled by the party not ensconced in the White House.
That is the scenario an angry American electorate has dealt Mr Bush. A president steeped in conviction politics must now compromise. Replacing Mr Rumsfeld with a Defence Secretary who is driven by reality, not ideology, is a start. That must continue if an utterly undistinguished legacy is not to be his lot.
