U.S. President George W. Bush has shaken up his economic team. The moves had been long expected. Despite the U.S. administration's claim that the economic downturn was the product of events beyond its control -- an assertion that is largely true -- the president's top officials were not doing him much good either. Their penchant for gaffes and contradictory statements had undermined domestic and international confidence in his policies. Mr. Bush understands the importance of a team that speaks with one voice. Above all else, he is focusing on the 2004 elections, and he knows that the outcome will depend primarily on the state of the U.S. economy.

Last week, Mr. Bush dismissed Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, president of the National Economic Council. Those moves followed the resignation of Mr. Harvey Pitt, the embattled chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. O'Neill was the colorful former president of Alcoa, whose blunt talk delighted the media, rattled markets and horrified a White House that demanded consistency and the appearance of competence and control at all times.

Mr. O'Neill's gaffes were memorable. He offended Wall Street by announcing that he could learn a trader's job in two weeks. Before his first Group of Seven meeting he appeared to abandon the long-standing U.S. support for a strong dollar in a statement that shook markets and his counterparts. He insulted Brazilians by implying that economic aid for them was pointless as it only fled the country into secret overseas bank accounts. Mr. Bush had to step in to assuage bruised feelings.

Mr. O'Neill's biggest problem was his tendency to stray from the administration's economic line. Mr. O'Neill was less than enthusiastic about the tax cuts the president fought for when he first came to office. He had also expressed reservations about a new stimulus package so large it could send the country back into huge deficits. Moreover, the Treasury secretary had crossed swords with Congress a few times, and there were concerns that he would not have the clout -- or the credibility -- to sell the president's economic plan on Capitol Hill or Wall Street.

Mr. Lindsey faced similar concerns. While his ideological credentials were impeccable, he was faulted for being a poor administrator and salesman when those skills were going to be needed most. Mr. Pitt had had an embattled tenure that was marked by accusations that he was too close to the industry he was supposed to regulate. Questions about his ethics dogged him from the moment he took office.

These men were all judged a liability as the White House turned to focus on the 2004 ballot. White House strategists know that while two issues are foremost in the minds of the American voter -- the economy and the possibility of war with Iraq -- the former will always take priority. No matter what his faults, Mr. Bush has a key appreciation of politics. The defining event in his political consciousness was his father's defeat by Mr. Bill Clinton in the 1992 ballot. Even though the first President Bush had reached historically high popular support levels following the overwhelming victory in the Persian Gulf War, he was defeated by the Arkansas governor because of dimming economic prospects for American voters. Then, as now, "it's the economy, stupid."

The current White House resident is determined to avoid that mistake. With consumer confidence dipping -- a recent poll shows it falling after recovering from an eight-year low in October -- Mr. Bush knows he has to have a visible recovery before the ballot. Mr. Clinton was the beneficiary of policies put in place by the first President Bush; unfortunately, the results did not materialize in time for Mr. Bush to get credit.

The problem now is that there are differing views on the appropriate remedy. As in the days of President Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party is split between advocates of deep tax cuts and those who want more fiscal responsibility. One of Mr. O'Neill's biggest blemishes -- to the Bush team -- was his concern about another $300 billion in tax cuts that serve as the foundation of the president's recovery plan. Conservatives now worry that the new team -- Treasury Secretary nominee John W. Snow and Mr. Stephen Friedman, former head of Goldman Sachs, who will lead the National Economic Council -- may not have sufficient tax-cutting fervor.

Some call this "a debate for the soul" of the GOP. Perhaps, but the stakes are much higher than that. American leadership is based, ultimately, on the country's economic strength. The failure to get its house in order and the economy back on its feet will have repercussions that extend far beyond the election results in 2004. Policies, not personalities, must be the focus.