CEOs to Bush: keep your eye on the ball. (Capitol Ideas).

World War II saved Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The talk of battle--and then war itself--turned the country's mind away from a decade of depression and the slow slog of the New Deal and led to a burst of economic activity that created one of the most remarkable booms of the 20th century. Today's growing conflict with Iraq, however, is unlikely to provide similar relief for George W Bush. The economy is not in such desperate shape and the war on terrorism is not being fought on the scale, or with the stakes, of World War II.

But one thing remains unchanged: When a bad economy intersects with a need to face down a foreign enemy, headline writers and politicians alike suffer from a bipolar disorder, uncertain whether they should focus on the slowly unfolding troubles at home or the more vivid confrontation abroad.

It has happened all fall. President Bush spent August determined to show that he would not repeat his father's mistake: ignoring domestic economic realities as he focused on the Middle East. Bush organized a conference near his Texas ranch and promised tax reforms to help bolster a listless economy. But all that was virtually forgotten by the time he returned to Washington. Bush's advisers fought among themselves about the tax proposals, which were skewed toward the rich and would worsen the Federal deficit. Those proposals were ultimately shoved to the back burner.

All of September and October, Iraq dominated Bush's attention, much to the surprise of Washington outsiders for whom confronting Saddam Hussein seemed less urgent than reviving a struggling economy.

To many CEOs and others outside the beltway, the absence of presidential focus on the economy was mystifying. The Dow was imploding; the recovery faltering. Unemployment claims were rising, just weeks before a major midterm election. Deflation fears rippled through the markets. The rest of the world looked sick as well: The economies of Argentina and Brazil were teetering, Japan's banking crisis worsened. But when the world's financial leaders gathered in Washington for the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the President did not even address them.

What's happening? Most theories focus on divisions within the Bush economic team.

The divisions are profound. Bush's political advisers were reluctant to give Democrats ammunition by boosting the Federal deficit, so they stopped major spending, even on homeland defense. They want to save economic initiatives for next year, when they are more likely to benefit Bush in the ramp-up to the 2004 presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, a man whose influence seems to erode monthly, argues that the country is on the road to a "rocky recovery." His solution is patience. Other economic advisers are pressing for a further cut in interest rates, concerned that the lesson of Japan in the 1990s--of doing too little, too late until a deflationary spiral took hold--should serve as a warning to Bush.

The prospect of war has left the markets jittery. The Saudis, among others, have been pulling their money out of the United States. When asked about the costs of a war, White House officials shrug, arguing that the U.S. has never put a price on its national security. True, but even Abraham Lincoln had to find a way to pay for security and keep the American economy afloat.

When the President talks about the economy, the lines are familiar and the new ideas are scarce. If that pattern persists, the pressure on the White House will increase. Former Vice President Al Gore, in an October speech, called on Bush to replace his economic team--a move many market players and even some Republicans say would be welcome. "I am not asking the President to abandon his ideology," said Gore. "I am suggesting that he should try to reconcile his ideology with the realities now being faced by the American people."

The mood of Washington seems best captured by the man in the middle: Senator James Jeffords, whose departure from the Republican Party last year turned control of the Senate over to the Democrats. He sounds like a fierce Bush critic. "The drumbeat of war cannot and must not drown out the needs of our families, our children and our environment," he declared on the Senate floor recently, especially a war that is unlikely to last long, or to mobilize America into a burst of productivity.

David E. Sanger covers the White House for The New York Times.