David Bernstein of the Volokh Conspiracy asks why George W. Bush is not the darling of liberals:
Huge increases in spending on education and other domestic programs that are not even within the federal government's constitutional purview; a new prescription drug entitlement for the elderly; Wilsonian rhetoric and actions in foreign policy; Kennedyesque manned space mission boondoggles; clumsy protectionism; in its appointments to high-level positions, the most affirmative-action conscious administration in American history; a proposal to legalize the status of illegal aliens; and now, a huge proposed increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Remind me again of why liberals are so hostile to George Bush?
What liberals dislike about Bush is the very same thing that O'Neill disliked: reckless incompetence, Karl Rove running policy, nihilism on a grand scale.Here's the difference between Nixon and Bush: When Nixon left, his successor could proclaim that "our long national nightmare is over." With Bush, we'll be feeling the consequences for generations.
The more interesting question is the flip side of the point Mr. Bernstein raises. If people like Mr. Bernstein view Mr. Bush as having governed as the darling of liberals, why does he continue to enjoy overwhelming support from Republicans?
According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, around 90% of all Republicans support President Bush’s reelection regardless of the candidate chosen by the Democrats.
Make no mistake about it, the solidity of Republican support for Mr. Bush is his greatest asset. Of the incumbent Presidents who did not win reelection in the last 50 years, every one had a challenge within his own party.
Lyndon Johnson was challenged by Gene McCarty, Jerry Ford by Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter by Ted Kennedy, and George H. W. Bush by Pat Buchanan. Lack of unity is often fatal. Despite governing in a way that Mr. Bernstein thinks would please liberals, Mr. Bush has no such challenger.
Small government Republicans can not be happy that Mr. Bush has enacted a major new social welfare entitlement (the Medicare prescription drug benefit) nor that NCLB (Ted Kennedy's education bill!) imposes large unfunded mandates on the states.
Republicans concerned with national security can not condone the administration’s willingness to burn an undercover CIA operative working on WMD issues in order to provide political protection for Mr. Bush.
Republicans who in the 1990s supported Newt Gingrich’s efforts to force Bill Clinton to propose a balanced budget (resulting in shutting down the government), must be alarmed at a budget deficit exceeding half a trillion dollars per year.
Free traders must wince at the protectionist policies of the administration with regard to steel, textiles and agriculture.
America First Republicans, typified by Pat Buchanan, must chafe at Mr. Bush’s guest worker immigration proposal we well as his embrace of nation building.
Veterans could view Mr. Bush's lackadaisical attitude toward fulfilling his military commitment with distain.
Social conservatives must look askance at Mr. Bush’s proposed budget increase for the NEA.
Despite those differences, Republicans are nearly unanimous in supporting Mr. Bush. Why is that? I think there a number of reasons.
Some conservatives, particularly social conservatives, see ultimate victory in the culture wars being won not in the legislature but rather in the Federal Courts. That victory can not be realized without a Republican President.
Big business Republicans have simply been purchased.
Some Republicans, the House Leadership comes to mind, simply want to retain power and a weakened Republican President threatens them.
Bernstein suggests that “the dirty little secret of American politics, as explained so well by Michael Barone, is that cultural cues are more important than policy and ideology.” I think that is exactly right. Mr. Bush keeps his support on the right by use of such cultural cues, often in code and often being understood by some as indicating things that Mr. Bush would never say out loud and probably does not believe.
Finally, there is 9/11 and the war on terror. Atrios refers to 9/11 as “The Day That Justifies Everything.” For many Republicans, it is the day that causes their support for George W. Bush to never waiver.
In the last few days, there has been some indication that that Mr. Bush’s Republican support could slip. The Kay revelations, the introduction of a budget calling for a $521 billion deficit, Mr. Bush’s failure to let House Republicans know that the cost of the prescription drug benefit might be greater than thought and new polls showing John Kerry ahead of Mr. Bush, all may have caused doubts about Mr. Bush in the minds of some Republicans.
If Mr. Bush’s Republican support weakens, or if his base is not motivated for the election, he is in serious trouble. The Democrats are motivated to beat him and will unite around their nominee. In a 50-50 nation, unity and enthusiasm are crucial. If Mr. Bush loses a significant portion of Republican support, he could be toast.
I doubt that will happen. The campaign, including a “slime and defend” effort against he Democratic nominee, Bush’s substantial war chest, his ability to frame the debate from the bully pulpit, and above all the war on terror are likely to keep Republicans in the fold.
Whatever the polls say now, nine months before the election, Mr. Bush remains a solid favorite to win reelection.
Gah, that's a depressing thought. :(
It might do well to remind conservatives that this Administration has not only done a multitude of things that are anethema to liberals, but they're also doing all the things that conservatives said they've hated about liberals (quagmire wars, taxing the poor by giving money away to the rich, increasing government bureaucracy) even if they're stuff that liberals haven't done (well, except for the quagmire war thing, thanks Kennedy & Johnson). So by all rights nobody should be supporting them, libs or cons.
Posted by: Elayne Riggs at February 3, 2004 12:52 PMSpeaking as someone who is disappointed (to say the least) with the President's performance over the last 9 months or so, especially with his out of control spending, the problem (for me, at least) is that when I look elsewhere for an alternative I see proposals for even more spending on top of raising my taxes.
If you want to know why the GOP "base" stays firm, that's it. Personally, I'd trade for McCain right now, but I certainly wouldn't trade for even more spending.
Posted by: Ricky at February 3, 2004 05:27 PMI don't know how you can call Dubya a solid favorite. His poll numbers are going down, down, down, and the latest Newsweek poll shows 47% of voters strongly opposed to him (and another 5% opposed, but not strongly). Virtually every poll shows Kerry beating him (by as much as 12%, IIRC, in the Quinnipiac poll). I got an e-mail from Edwards today saying that some national poll is now showing him beating Bush too (49%Edwards-48% Bush). The WMD lies, the mess in Iraq caused by the WMD lies, the Medicare lies (a cost of $530 billion, not $400 billion, over 10 years), 2.3 million jobs lost, and the monstrous budget deficit are coming home to roost. As Krugman noted today, the 2004 budget deficit is more than $500 billion higher than the Bushies predicted two years ago -- which was after 9/11, mind you. Even Republicans are appalled by what Bush (and Congressional Republicans) have done to the deficit. Bush is in deep, deep shit, and it's likely to get even worse for him. The only thing that has stopped Bush's support from complete collapse is the popular perception that he's strong in the "war on terror." But that is being undermined daily by the unfolding disaster that is Iraq (the purported centerpiece of his war on terror -- yet we now know that Iraq had no WMD's and no connection to al Qaeda or 9/11). The Democratic candidate can and will point out that Bush went after Saddam while ignoring OBL, the guy he should have been pursuing and whom Dubya had vowed to get "dead or alive" -- then forgot about. Even Dubya's AWOL-ness is finally getting serious play. He's going down.
Posted by: Frederick at February 3, 2004 09:16 PMI've said it before: party discipline, party discipline, party discipline. Bush is counting on it; he has helped parlay what has always been a minority party in terms of voter registration and affiliations into a commanding presence in all three branches of government.
While we gen-u-ine liberals figure out who we will disown because of which one of the pet fractious causes we don't like (animal rights, gay rights, drilling in ANWR, abortion on demand, etc.), this "Republican" president can sell out just about everything that every Republican prior to him including his own father has ever stood for in less than three years-- and he STILL gets TOTAL PARTY SUPPORT.
The GWB message has always been simple-- "what's good for business (the "entrepreneurial class", and ESPECIALLY their unproductive and undeserving heirs and other beneficiaries) is just plain good", period; if you're rich-- you deserve it. If you're poor-- you deserve THAT too. Its a stupid message, really-- but a simple and effective one, evidently, especially among the 20% of the public that thinks its in the top 1%.
Democrats have to figure out what the fuck we're about. The party of abortion on demand is a dead loser-- and yet, here we go again with it. The guys who have made the point of ECONOMIC FAIRNESS-- what the Democratic Party SHOULD be about (that would be Edwards and Dean) are being crushed right now by the tax and spend Kerry juggernaut.
Here we go again.
Note also that the Newsweek poll also shows that most Americans think that they did not benefit from Bush's tax cuts. Another poll I saw (it might have just been an online poll, but I'm sure a real poll would come out the same way) indicated that when asked, "Are you better off today than you were three years ago?" far more respondents said they were worse off today than said they were better off today.
Posted by: Frederick at February 3, 2004 09:21 PMTD: I certainly agree about unity and disicipline. Democrats need to forget about purity, forget about pet issues and focus on beating Bush. I am written on that theme before and expect to again. Of the candiates remaining viable after tonite, I prefer Edwards but I will wholeheartedly support the nominee regardless.
Frederick, I hope you are right but I do not think so. At this point in 1996, Bob Dole led Bill Clinton. In august of 1988, Mike Dukakis led GHWB.
Bush has $100 million cash on hand, no primary oppositon, the bully pulpit, a large part of the media is captive to him. If he hauls Osama in chains across the convention stage in NY, what will that do to the polls?
I think the Dems have a chance to win, and I certianly hope that they do but it will require 1) that our candidate run a perfect race and 2) complete unity of the party.
A huge increase for the NEA? I think there is some disagreement about huge. $20 million seems small compared to the endowment's huge cuts over the course of time (after all, the GOP Congress wanted to do away with it completely), and compared to spending $1.5 billion promoting heterosexual marriage.
Posted by: Tom Burka at February 4, 2004 10:56 PMI can sum up my distaste for Bush easier: He and his Daddy have murdered more Iraqis than Saddam and think their saviors to those folks.
I don't cotton to murderers and the arrogant ones suck sewage.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 5, 2004 01:11 AM'they're', not 'their'...
Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 5, 2004 01:13 AMWhen the public finds out that Bush ignored urgent intelligence warnings about a "spectacular" al Quaida attack on U.S. soil in August 2001, it's going to be all over for him. There are too many chinks in the administration's armor--the AWOL issue, Valerie Plame, Cheney's ties w/Halliburton, and then there are the incendiary books being released. Back to 9/11, check out this link:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Believe me, the criminals are going down, down, down.