Wampum

Still Looking for Cracks In the Dam

For some time now, I have been looking for signs of cracks in President Bush’s base of support among Republicans and conservatives. For previous posts on that subject see here, here and here.

There are a lot of anecdotal evidence flying about that suggests that erosion of Mr. Bush’s support by his base may be occurring. Many people have blogged one or more of the various aspects of this potential story. Those people include the Talking Dog, Jeanne D’arc( here, here, and here), Atrios, Billmon and DHinMI at DKos.

I thought it might be helpful to pull all the strands together in one spot. Those strands include anecdotes suggesting erosion of Mr. Bush's support among both social conservatives and national security conservatives. In addition, the issues of immigration reform and education reform seem to be speeding the erosion along. I will look at each of those issues below.

Social Conservatives
The first sign of cracks in the dam come from the social conservatives. Via the Talking Dog comes a Moonie Times story suggesting that Bush’s relationship with social conservatives is suffering:

"It's not just economic conservatives upset by runaway federal spending that he's having trouble with. I think his biggest problem will be social conservatives who are not motivated to work for the ticket and to ensure their fellow Christians get to the polling booth," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute…

Their list of grievances is long, but right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue, although he has said he would support a constitutional amendment if necessary to ban same-sex "marriages." …

"I'm not blaming the president, but religious conservatives have been doing politics for 25 years and, on every front, are worse off on things they care about," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "The gay rights movement is more powerful, the culture is more decadent, the life of not one baby has been saved, porn is in the living room, and you can't watch the Super Bowl without your hand on the off switch." …

"What is at issue here is, will our folks be AWOL when it comes time for the election because they are just not energized and motivated?" said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "Social conservatives coalesce around strong leadership. That's what motivates and energizes them. And on their core issues, the leadership from the White House is not there right now."

The important point is the one made by Gary Bauer. Since 1980, social conservatives have given their time, energy, money and near unanimous support to the Republican Party in the hope of halting what they view as America’s moral slide. That support has helped elect three Republican Presidents and has helped elect majorities of both Houses of Congress. What has been the payoff for all of that loyalty?

From the perspective of the social conservatives, the answer is not much. The Republican Presidents the social conservatives helped elect have appointed a clear majority of the Supreme Court. Among those appointments, however, are Justices Suter and O’Connor who have steadfastly refused to outlaw abortion or affirmative action.

Evolution is still taught in public school. Creationism, generally, is not. Public school teachers still are not permitted to lead school children in Christian prayers. Social conservatives believe that Trent Lott was forced out as Majority Leader for being kind to an old man at a birthday party. President Bush proposes to increase the funding for the NEA. Popular culture remains subject to wardrobe malfunctions. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is a hit. Vice President Cheney announces that gay marriage is a matter for the states and that the various states may appropriately arrive at different decisions. As the Talking Dog put it “the President hasn't called in troops to execute gays getting married in San Francisco…”

For decades the Republican Party has told social conservatives to be patient. For decades, Wall Street Republicans and country club conservatives have seen their agenda enacted by Republicans while social conservatives have had to settle for empty rhetoric. Is it any wonder, when viewed from their point of view, that social conservatives are feeling a little taken for granted?

Still, where do the social and religious conservatives have to go? They are unlikely to vote for a Democrat. They may stay home but in order for Mr. Bush’s base of support to really erode among social conservatives, a different alternative must exist.

Into that mix rides Roy Moore, the former Alabama Chief Justice known as the Ten Commandments Judge.

John Fund, writing in the Wall Street Journal, suggests that Judge Moore may run for President:

A big threat to President Bush's re-election could come if his conservative base chooses not to turn out and vote in large numbers this fall. That's one reason he told a congressional Republican retreat on Saturday that he supports spending caps on the exploding federal budget. But the president could also still face a challenge from a social conservative running as a third-party candidate.

In the past such candidacies have fizzled. But Roy Moore, the ousted Alabama Supreme Court justice who made headlines last year by refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he placed on public property, could make a difference in a close race. And just last week, he refused to rule out a presidential candidacy.

A lot of people want him to run. Last Saturday, Mr. Moore was a featured speaker at the Christian Coalition's "Family and Freedom" rally in Atlanta. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported he was "treated like a rock star, signing autographs and getting thunderous standing ovations." The week before that, Mr. Moore was the speaker at a dinner in Lancaster, Pa., sponsored by the Constitution Party, which has the third-largest number of registered voters in the U.S. and whose presidential candidate, Howard Phillips, was on 41 state ballots in 2000.

Tim Noah of Slate is promoting the candidacy of Judge Moore, although perhaps for different reasons.

The Nation explains the potential importance of a Moore candidacy:

Those in the Bush White House and its echo chambers on right-wing talk radio and the Fox television network, who have been delighting in the prospect of a Nader run, may not be laughing for long. Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama jurist whose fight to display the Ten Commandments on state property drew national attention last year, is being courted by the right-wing Constitution Party as a potential presidential candidate. (The Constitution Party was on the ballot in 41 states in 2000, and retains a solid network of activist supporters nationwide.) With growing numbers of core conservatives angered by Bush's policies on immigration, federal spending and individual liberties, a Moore candidacy could develop into a serious problem for the president. More than 20 percent of the voters in January's New Hampshire Republican primary cast ballots for someone other than Bush; more than 10 percent of Oklahoma Republican primary voters did the same. Come November, Moore could pose a greater threat to Republican prospects than Nader will to the Democrats.

All I can add to that is “Run, Roy, Run.”

National Security Conservatives
Grumbling within Mr. Bush’s base is not limited to social conservatives. National security conservatives are beginning to grumble as well. James Webb was the Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. He recently wrote a piece in USA Today extremely critical of Mr. Bush’s national security policies:

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.
There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.

In addition to Mr. Webb, the New York Times ran a story about Mr. Bush’s problems with the base.

In the 2000 presidential election, Bill Flanagan a semiretired newspaper worker, happily voted for George W. Bush. But now, shaking his head, he vows, "Never again."

"The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful," Mr. Flanagan said, drinking coffee and reading newspapers at the local mall. "I could vote for Kerry. I could vote for any Democrat unless he's a real dummy."…

In dozens of random interviews around the country, independents and Republicans who said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 say they intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this year…

In the interviews, many of those potential "crossover" voters said they supported the invasion of Iraq but had come to see the continuing involvement there as too costly and without clear objectives.

Many also said they believed that the Bush administration had not been honest about its reasons for invading Iraq and were concerned about the failure to find unconventional weapons…

While sharing a sandwich at the stylish Beachwood Mall in this Cleveland suburb, one older couple — a judge and a teacher — reluctantly divulged their secret: though they are stalwarts in the local Republican Party, they are planning to vote Democratic this year.

"I feel like a complete traitor, and if you'd asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different," said the judge, after assurances of anonymity. "But we are really disgusted. It's the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans, who don't even want to hear the name George Bush anymore."…

George Meagher, a Republican who founded and now runs the American Military Museum in Charleston, S.C., said he threw his "heart and soul" into the Bush campaign four years ago. He organized veterans to attend campaign events, including the campaign's kickoff speech at the Citadel. He even has photographs of himself and his wife with Mr. Bush.

"Given the outcome and how dissatisfied I am with the administration, it's hard to think about now," he said. "People like me, we're all choking a bit at not supporting the president. But when I think about 500 people killed and what we've done to Iraq. And what we've done to our country. I mean, we're already $2 trillion in debt again."

If Mr. Bush’s support erodes among folks like those quoted in the Times, he could be in serious trouble.

The Immigration Issue
Mr. Bush’s proposed immigration reform has caused some consternation within the base. Via
Jeanne, comes this New York Times story:

Amid the crowded field of Republicans vying for a seat in the Senate here, Jim Oberweis seems a most unlikely insurgent. He is a wealthy supporter of President Bush who favors pinstriped suits, tax cuts and a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage.

But in recent weeks, Mr. Oberweis, a plainspoken dairy owner, has become a leader in a widening conservative revolt against the president's sweeping plan to grant temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

"The president's plan is just plain wrong," Mr. Oberweis says in a radio advertisement and at public appearances that have drawn hundreds of supporters to his campaign. "I want to be the voice for Illinois voters to tell the president we think illegal immigration cannot be rewarded with amnesty."
Mr. Oberweis is a symbol of a simmering conservative uprising against one of the president's biggest initiatives. One month after Mr. Bush promised the most comprehensive overhaul of immigration law in nearly two decades, opposition to his plan is mounting among conservative Republicans vying for votes in House and Senate races in Illinois, North Carolina, California, Kansas and elsewhere.

Atrios brings us another example of the immigration issue eroding Mr. Bush’s base. From the Los Angeles Times:

An uproar over illegal immigration roiled the state Republican convention on Saturday as party leaders struggled to keep the rank and file united behind Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush.

Hundreds of GOP loyalists booed the president at a rally where U.S. Senate hopeful Howard Kaloogian and his allies denounced Bush's plan to give temporary legal status to undocumented workers.

Enough is enough!" the crowd shouted. "Enough is enough!"

A Kaloogian supporter, Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, told the crowd he knew a gynecologist who surveyed patients about the plan and found it rated "right below genital herpes."

Mr. Bush proposes immigration reform, in part, to reach out to Hispanic voters. Not only has the proposal not had the intended result, it appears to have softened Mr. Bush's base of support among conservatives and Republicans.

NCLB
The centerpiece of Mr. Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism agenda, No Child Left Behind is also not proving to be popular among conservatives. The New York Times reports:

It was 8 p.m., and Ken Meyer was smiling gamely from a gloomy high school stage at an audience of disgruntled teachers and parents to whom he had been introduced as "a bigwig from Washington," come to Utah to explain President Bush's centerpiece education law…

I've been in some, I don't want to say hostile, but very contentious environments" in recent months, Mr. Meyer said. "Places where I wondered whether I'd get out of there with my skin intact…

Mr. Meyer's trip this week was the second Bush administration mission in two weeks to Utah. A five-person delegation this month defended the law to lawmakers, but the Republican-controlled Utah House nevertheless voted 64 to 8 on Feb. 10 not to comply with any provisions not fully financed by federal money. That measure now awaits Senate action.

The Feb. 10 vote by the Utah House was the strongest action by any state legislature to date, but more than a dozen other states have passed or introduced laws or resolutions challenging the federal law or commissioning studies of the costs of carrying it out.

Last month, the Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates passed a resolution, 98 to 1, urging Congress to exempt Virginia from the law. That vote came after Rod Paige, the education secretary, and other administration officials met with Virginia lawmakers, said James H. Dillard II, chairman of the House Education Committee.

"Six of us met with Paige," Mr. Dillard, a Republican, said. "He looked us in the eye and said, `It's fully funded.' We looked him back in the eye and said, `We don't think so.' "

"We got platitudes and stonewalls, but no corrective action," he said…

"These are die-hard conservative Republicans, and they feel that this is like crying wolf when they see their school labeled for frivolous reasons," Mr. Norton said in an interview that he had told Mr. Meyer…

Russel Sias, a retired engineer and registered Republican whose daughter is a middle school teacher, said to a reporter at the meeting: "I feel like we're hearing the best vacuum cleaner salesman in the world. They're going to label every school in the country as failing, and they call it empowerment?"

Summary
Democrats, for once, appear to be united. They will perhaps not require ideological purity tests on their candidate. With Democrats united, our nominee will be free to pursue independent and swing voters in the general election.

Donkey Rising notes that the trend of independents toward the Democrats has already begun:

Democracy Corps also finds that independents and voters in swing areas are moving rapidly away from Bush. In their Bush-Kerry trial heat, independents favor Kerry by 11 points, voters in swing states favor him by 6 points and voters in swing congressional districts back Kerry by 4 points. And, on the question about whether the country should go in a significantly different direction, independents favor a different direction by an impressive 23 points (60 percent to 37 percent), voters in swing districts favor a new direction by 11 points and voters in swing states want the same by 10 points.

In order to win, Mr. Bush needs to reverse that trend, keep his base and reach out to swing and independent voters. The disgruntlement of Mr. Bush’s base is unlikely to cause wholesale defections of conservatives to the Democrats. That disgruntlement, however, may limit Mr. Bush’s ability to appeal to swing voters without alienating his core support.

Mr. Bush’s efforts to bring swing voters into his camp have failed so far. The Mars initiative fell flat. NCLB has become a liability. Immigration reform irritates the base without providing significant inroads to Hispanic voters. The war has not only ceased to resonate with voters but is starting to hurt Mr. Bush.

That leaves Mr. Bush with two options. First, is to slime the Democratic candidate to make the race a choice between evils. The second is to refocus the war on terror away from Iraq and onto Al Qaeda and Osama. I expect both.

Correction:

George Meagher, identified as a Republican in the New York Times article quoted above, is, in fact and independent. The Times published the following correction:

An article on Sunday about people who supported George Bush in the 2000 election and are considering a vote for the Democratic candidate this year referred incorrectly to George Meagher, who voiced dissatisfaction with the administration. As noted on Feb. 3 in an earlier account of his comments in the same interview, for an article about veterans leaning toward Senator John Kerry, Mr. Meagher is an independent, not a Republican.

I regret the error and am sorry to have so disparaged Mr. Meagher.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at February 23, 2004 02:44 PM | TrackBack