The tradition dates back to the Renaissance, when portraiture was a function of history, an attempt to document for posterity the greatness of great men.
And in the early days of the United States, the founders saw a political purpose in commissioning official portraits. George Washington sat for Gilbert Stuart. Defenders argue that a painting is still the most permanent archive of history.
But with the economy tanking, some are asking if we really need portraits of every Cabinet member and sub-Cabinet official to hang on an agency's walls. Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told the Washington Post that in this age of digital photography, agencies should consider using photos.
I think most people like the tradition of presidents having their portraits painted. But where does the line get drawn? Somewhere between the president to Cabinet agency to sub-Cabinet -- somewhere along the way, I'm pretty sure that you'd lose wide public support.
But the temptation to try for immortality must be great. When he first took office in 1977, President Jimmy Carter called portraits "unnecessary luxury" and ordered his Cabinet members to use photos instead. But his portrait hangs in the White House, as does Rosalyn Carter's.
Perhaps the quandary is best summed-up by an art historian, David Bjelajac. The George Washington University professor told the Post, "A photograph has an association with journalistic everyday life, whereas a painted image suggests something that transcends the moment."
So, as the Post's Christopher Lee found in a survey of the agencies, the Defense Department is awaiting delivery of former Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's portrait ($46,790). NASA paid $25,000 for a portrait of former administrator Daniel S. Goldin. And the Environmental Protection Agency forked over $29,500 for a portrait of outgoing Secretary Stephen L. Johnson. That's on top of the $19,000 that the National Cancer Institute paid for a portrait of former director Andrew C. von Eschenbach, now head of the Food and Drug Administration.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested recently that Congress should get to work on a second stimulus package that would include up to $150 billion in federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps, highway-construction projects and aid to cash-strapped state governments.
To hear the White House tell it, you'd think she was proposing, well, socialism or something. Only last Thursday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said the administration "didn't think" the Democrats' proposals to spur spending "would help bring money into the economy."
But today, two weeks out from an election that some see as a referendum on George W. Bush's handling of the economy, the White House has a new tune.
First, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave his blessings to a second stimulus for the economy, which he predicted would be weak for several quarters. Then, as President Bush flew to Louisiana for an economic speech, Perino told reporters on Air Force One that the White House is "open" to a new plan and would "look carefully" at suggestions. In a press gaggle, she said:
We're continuing to have conversations with members of Congress and we're open to ideas that they would put forward that would -- both Democrats and Republicans alike -- that would stimulate the economy and help us pull out of this downturn faster.
It may be too late. Pelosi told the Associated Press the other day that she thinks she'll wait until a new administration takes office. "If (Bush) won't sign it, then let's get on a path" to a bill, Pelosi said, "instead of beating our head against a wall just to make a point that he won't sign it. But we can get something signed — please, God — when Barack Obama wins the election."
As President Bush meets today with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the head of the European Commission, he might keep in mind the view of the United States from Europe, Japan and elsewhere.
It isn't pretty -- and has grown notably ugly during his presidency.
A poll conducted by eight major newspapers found that opinions of the United States had dropped sharply over the past eight years.
According to a report in the Guardian, of Britain, among the French, 75% said their view of the United States had gotten worse or much worse since Bush became president. In Canada, 77% made a similar statement.
And in Switzerland -- notwithstanding die anmut,la douceur, la dolcezza (OK, for those of you not conversant in three of Switzerland's four languages, the sweetness) of Heidi and its chocolates, and its appreciation of Bush-like efficiency -- the percentage of those with an increasingly negative view of America under Bush topped out at 86%.
The credit-banking-financial maelstrom will be the central topic of Bush's meeting this afternoon with Sarkozy at Camp David, Md. Maybe the Swissies are thinking of late about the banking crisis?
In its report, the Guardian noted:
Many people now fear rather than warm to America. In France 25% of voters say relations with the U.S. are tense, against 38% who say they are friendly and 39% who think they are neutral. In Japan only 16% say friendship and 19% tension, with 62% neutral. In no country does a majority think relations should be described as friendly.
Even America's two neighbouring states are sceptical of U.S. intentions. Only 23% of Mexicans describe relations as friendly and 28% say they are tense. In Canada, which has just re-elected a Conservative minority government, voters are strongly supportive of a Democratic presidency; 43% say relations with the U.S. are friendly and 14% tense.
The survey also finds strong opposition to any attack on Iran and -- in the six countries questioned on the issue -- majority support for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
Indeed, it found that in each country polled, with the exception of Britain and Poland, a majority opposed military intervention in Iran.
As for views of the U.S. presidential election, John McCain and Barack Obama, the blue and red in the chart above says it all.
As his term moves inexorably to its end, day by day as the countdown continues, President Bush moves through the paces of the chief executive.
On Friday, before flying to Camp David, Md., itself a symbol of his office, he spoke to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, delivering one more early-morning, before-the-market-opens speech seeking to instill confidence in the U.S. and global economy.
And as this photograph of Bush at the presidential lectern this morning suggests: The president is leaving; the presidency remains.
Lately on the campaign trail, it seems like the conversation has come down to a contest between symbols in a battle for votes.
Republican John McCain offers Joe the Plumber, a middle-class man in Ohio (seen above) who recently assailed Democrat Barack Obama for his tax policies. Today Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin invoked Joe Wurzelbacher's cause while stumping in Ohio. In response, supporters chanted, "Joe, Joe, Joe." Meanwhile, as Obama's motorcade traveled to Roanoke, Va. anti-tax protestors lined the route waving -- yep -- plungers.
And then there's Bush.
McCain chided Obama in their final debate the other night, saying "Senator, if you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."
So today Obama conceded that the Arizona senator is not George W. Bush.
"He doesn't look like President Bush," said Obama. "He doesn't have that same Texas accent." And, said Obama, "I don't blame Sen. McCain for all of President Bush's mistakes. After all, he's only voted with George Bush 90% of the time."
The Obama punchline of course is that even though McCain doesn't look or sound like the current president, "it is fair to say that over the course of three debates and 20 months and over the last eight years, Sen. McCain still hasn't offered a single thing that he would do differently from George W. Bush when it comes to the most important economic issues we face today. Not one."
In the midst of the global economic crisis, President Bush is looking for ways to spread the wealth around.
He is speaking Tuesday at the White House Conference on the New Era in Development, an outgrowth of his efforts at the end of his White House tenure to expand the growth of the developing world.
Also on the president's schedule in coming days: a speech on the economy in Alexandria, La., on Monday and, after the development conference in Washington, a fundraiser for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
At the end of the week: a ceremony marking the accession of Albania and Croatia into NATO.
For the president's public schedule, click on Read Full Story...
The solution that Sarkozy is touting is nothing less than to "recast the capitalist system."
In less dramatic but similarly sweeping terms, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is talking about an overhaul of the global financial order.
Writing on the op-ed page of today's Washington Post, he called for the sort of "visionary internationalism" that led after World War II to the post-war international economic order -- and institutions that he said must be "wholly rebuilt."
But don't expect anything like that to come floating out of the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains at dusk on Saturday.
Speaking early this morning to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, across Lafayette Park from the White House, Bush said "our European partners are taking bold steps," and they had the "full support of the United States."
The goal of Saturday's meeting, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said this morning, was "to address the challenges so that we can prevent a crisis like this from happening again [and] also preserve our free market system."
As for overhauling capitalism, Saturday's meeting may fall short.
Perino said: "I don't expect anything to be announced tomorrow or worked out."
In other words, stay tuned. There'll be no re-making of the world order this weekend. At least no announcement of it.
First he had lunch with local business owners and local bankers at Schnitz Delicatessen in Ada, Mich., outside of Grand Rapids.
After lunch, the president walked through Ada Bike Shop and spoke to reporters in a parking lot behind the restaurant.
Topic A: the economic crisis that sent stocks tumbling again Wednesday. George W. Bush said he told local business leaders why he felt the government's $700-billion rescue plan was necessary and why he hoped it would be temporary.
I explained to them that I was worried that if we did not do something about the financial situation, the economics would affect a lot of hard-working people all throughout our country, including right here in western Michigan. So we moved with a plan big enough to make a difference, a plan with features in it that will cause investments to be temporary, because I frankly don't want the government being involved with businesses, owning businesses -- it's not -- I don't think it's good for the country. It was necessary that the stock be purchased to help us through this financial crisis, but in the long run it's not good for the country.
Bush also suggested that the bailout could end up making money for taxpayers.
"The plan is structured to get government in a position where these investments will be returned to the taxpayers," he said. "And it's likely, by the way, that we'll not only get most of the money back but, in some cases, actually make a little money."
The president of the United States generally meets twice a year with the president of the European Commission -- once in Europe, once in the United States -- and the meeting occasionally takes on the trappings of a summit.
But with few major issues of disagreement dividing Europe and the United States -- and both working to ease the financial crisis sweeping the globe -- the next meeting will be largely low-key and out of view, save for a brief photo op at the start.
When President Clinton left office, the federal budget was showing a $127-billion surplus.
The books are closed on fiscal 2008. The surplus the current President Bush inherited has turned into a record deficit: $455 billion.
That is more than twice the 2007 deficit of $162 billion and beyond the previous record of $413 billion in 2004.
But records are made to be broken.
While Barack Obama or John McCain will submit the next federal budget weeks after Inauguration Day, it will be largely drawn up by Bush's aides.
And regardless of who is inaugurated, as the country copes with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the deficit is only expected to grow, our Los Angeles Times colleague Richard Simon reports in today's Times.
As the election campaign closes, look for the deficit report to figure in the debate -- and to add fire to House Democrats' efforts to pass another economic stimulus package to the tune of $150 billion.
-- James Gerstenzang
Photo: President Bush and President Clinton on inauguration day 2001. Credit: Shaun Best / Reuters
James Gerstenzang and Johanna Neuman are reporters in The Times' Washington bureau. Between the two of them, they have covered the White House, diplomacy, military affairs, the environment, international economics, trade and Congress. They have both spent time in Crawford, Texas.
