Embattled Bush now faces trouble on many fronts

George W Bush is in trouble. This is not wishful thinking by Europeans who cannot abide a man they see as a trigger-happy, unilateralist half-wit. It is an assessment of the 43rd President's standing at home, on the day he delivers what is surely one of the most important State of the Union messages in modern times.

Ten weeks ago, Mr Bush's prestige was at its height – higher in many respects even than in the aftermath of 11 September. His personal campaigning had made the difference in securing Republican control of Congress at November's mid-term elections. Cowed by fear of his popularity, Democrats in the Senate and the House helped grant him a virtual carte blanche in dealing with Iraq.

Today cracks have appeared in the façade. Not gaping cracks to be sure, but ones that if not swiftly repaired could yet bring down the Bush edifice. They are visible in tumbling consumer confidence, the Trent Lott affair which tarred the Republicans' image on race, the growing unease at the prospect of war in the Gulf – and in the polls.

Few ruling politicians would admit to allowing polls to influence their pursuit of the national good. But this White House – the most efficient and secretive in recent memory – pays as much attention to them as its predecessors. The indications are not good.

Mr Bush's approval ratings have slipped to the mid-50s – respectable enough for a President in normal times halfway through his term. But they have dipped 10 per cent since the mid-terms, bringing his popularity back to levels before the 2001 terrorist attacks.

A majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of the US economy, the bread and butter issue that over the longer term will eclipse even Iraq as a priority for voters. More than 1.5 million jobs have been lost on this Bush's watch.

On Iraq, American public opinion is increasingly resembling that of the despised wimps in "old Europe". Seven out of 10 believe that United Nations inspectors should be given months or more to complete their work. The country, according to one finding yesterday, is split down the middle when asked whether it trusts the President or the UN to make the right decisions on Iraq. Though 60 per cent broadly support military action against Iraq, Newsweek found, that backing plummets if the US were to act alone, or with the backing of just "one or two" allies, for example Britain.

This is the mood Mr Bush must turn around in his address to the Senate, House and other dignitaries. Hans Blix's report to the Council yesterday that Baghdad was not co-operating on the substance of the demands of resolution 1441 may help him. But he has to make the case that Saddam Hussein poses a real and immediate threat, and spell out America's responsibilities post-Saddam: not least the cost of reconstruction, much of which will be borne by Washington, probably for years.

There will be no declaration of war tonight, the White House assures, nor a specific date for Iraqi compliance. But nor is there likely to be the detailed proof of banned Iraqi weapons programmes that opinion, at home as well as abroad, demand.

Iraq is not the only battleground. Mr Bush must defend his $670bn (£410bn) economic stimulus package, centred on the abolition of taxes on dividends. No amount of White House spin can hide the fact the package is heavily tilted towards the rich. If small-government, tax-hating Conservatives love the proposals, the country is unconvinced.

Sensing Mr Bush's vulnerability, Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leaders in Senate and House respectively, yesterday made a new pitch for their party's quick-acting $130bn package, explicitly targeted at the less well off.

Mr Bush's problem is that he is trying to achieve two goals which are irreconcilable: to unite a sceptical country behind him in launching an unprovoked war, and pursue nakedly partisan domestic policies – not just over the economy. Mr Bush wants to further privatise health care, one day even social security. He seems oblivious to the collapse of US public finances – from a federal surplus of $250bn two years ago to a similar deficit this year.

"You've got to tend the garden," Colin Powell said recently, referring to America's dealings with its allies. He was quoting a dictum of George Shultz, Ronald Reagan's secretary of state. Mr Bush has not done that. He is paying the price in the charges of arrogance and the personal dislike he inspires abroad.

But he has also failed to tend the garden at home. The Democrats feel they've been taken for a ride. Having given the President their backing over Iraq, runs their version, they saw Mr Bush throw it back in their faces – using the national security issue to beat his opponents, implying that any Democrat who questioned his policy was unpatriotic.

Of course, polls should not be taken as gospel. If Mr Bush does choose war, even alone or virtually alone, and without specific UN Security Council approval, the country will rally behind him. The polls that matter are the ones after war. Only if things go wrong will public opinion turn. Even then an upturn in the economy could change every calculation.

If Saddam Hussein is quickly and comprehensively defeated, and US casualties are few, Mr Bush will bask in a victor's acclaim. But that is scant comfort. It happened 12 years ago when his father assembled a far wider coalition to drive Iraq from Kuwait. Barely a year later Bush Senior had lost the presidency.