President George Bush proclaims a compassionate conservatism and a commitment to bipartisanship, but, on the evidence of his first 100 days in office, he has governed firmly from the right wing of the US political spectrum. That can be seen mainly in his domestic agenda, but has also been shown in his foreign policy. This is too artificial and short a time to reach firm conclusions on Mr Bush's record and performance, but a self-deprecating pragmatic streak has helped him over several potential pitfalls and maintained his popularity so far.
He has been lucky not to have been blamed more for the difficulties facing the US economy and fortunate not to have faced a first-class international crisis in his first few months in office, as happened to several of his predecessors. Observers and voters approved his calm handling of the recent China spy plane affair. His ability to delegate decision-making to appropriate officials and cabinet members has helped - even at the risk of being perceived as a mere conduit for powerful appointees too open to lobbying from vested interests who made substantial contributions to Bush's campaign funding.
A majority of voters believe this is the case with regard to the president's environmental policies, where the right-wing policy has been most marked. A drumbeat of decisions has reversed measures imposed by the Clinton administration, including regulations covering arsenic in drinking water, toxic runoffs from mining operations, drilling for oil in wildlife parks and reneging on a campaign pledge to control the emission of carbon dioxide from power plants.
The related decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on the emission of global warming gases, and the manner of his doing so, was what most alarmed the United States's allies around the world. It seemed to confirm a pattern of arrogant unilateralism in the conduct of Mr Bush's foreign policy. This was also visible in decisions to harden policy towards China, cold shoulder reconciliation efforts between North and South Korea, antagonise the Putin administration in Russia by planning a missile defence system and open up a series of contentious disagreements with the European Union. It is too soon to say whether this pattern will be confirmed by the evolution of policy-making within the Bush administration. Observers detect a conflict between hardline neo-conservatives and more traditional pragmatists which is not yet played out. There are indications that the pragmatic wing may make most of the running on foreign, if not domestic, policy, moderating the unilateralist instinct. Much will depend on what happens to the US economy in coming months which will affect the administration's performance and status at home and abroad. A prolonged recession would come to haunt it, while a recovery towards the end of this year would strengthen its resolve. Those who expected Mr Bush would be forced by his narrow and controversial victory over Mr Al Gore to govern from the centre, have been proved wrong. His conservative instincts have been revealed, although he has been constrained to amend his tax-cutting and educational plans by congressional pressure. Until US economic prospects and foreign policy orientations become more clear, it will not be possible to make more definitive judgments.