Pre-emptive Politics
________________________
THE BUSH AGENDA
The president seizes the Democrats’ issues, but not without some political risk
By John J. Pitney Jr.
is professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and author of "The Art of Political Warfare."
January 25, 2004 - "Newsday"
Just as he carried out a pre-emptive military strike in Iraq, President George W. Bush is waging pre-emptive political war against his opponents. He has invaded some of their favorite issues, making it much harder for them to attack his record.
In doing so, Bush is behaving more like former President Bill Clinton than partisans of either man would like to admit. But, as Clinton learned, this potentially powerful strategy also can leave the president at risk, even within his own party.
The pre-emptive attack was much in evidence in the State of the Union address last week. Bush emphasized his education-reform plan, laying claim to an issue that the Democrats had long "owned." He noted the enactment of the Medicare prescription-drug bill and called for measures to curb health care costs.
In these cases, Democrats can scarcely label Bush as a "do-nothing" president. They do complain that these measures do not go far enough, and that the administration has botched the follow-through. To many voters, though, these criticisms may sound like nitpicking.
On immigration, the president called for "bringing millions of hard-working men and women out from the shadows of American life" through passage of a temporary worker program. By proposing a plan that is far more lenient than most observers had expected, Bush is undercutting the Democratic charge that Republicans are anti-immigrant. The political benefits could be substantial. Even if his proposal increases his Hispanic vote just a little, that could be enough to solidify his hold on Florida, Nevada and Arizona, and it could tip New Mexico into the GOP column.
This pre-emptive strategy is consistent with his 2000 campaign, where Bush ran as a "different kind of Republican" who spoke of"compassionate conservatism." Terrorism and Iraq eclipsed these themes for quite a while, but Bush is giving them a renewed emphasis as the election campaign begins. Accordingly, his State of the Union speech also mentioned such matters as job training and faith-based initiatives.
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton pre-empted Republican positions on issues ranging from balanced budgets to welfare reform. Dick Morris, his political consultant, coined the term "triangulation" for the practice of positioning the president above and between right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats. If Bush's State of the Union address had a shape, it would be a triangle.
The Clinton comparison raises a puzzle. Clinton closed the deficit, ended the federal entitlement to welfare and won enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement. On the issues, Republicans should have liked the guy. Instead, they hated him with a sputtering fury. Bush provokes similar anger among the liberals who cluster in the states that Al Gore carried in 2000. Since television election maps colored these states in blue, we might refer to the Bush-haters as "blue-hots."
Why all the heat? For one thing, many blue-hots think Bush cheated his way into the White House, just as many right-wing Republicans thought Clinton had won atop a cavalcade of lies. And pre-emption itself is a source of anger. Party loyalists really do develop a sense of ownership about issues, and they resent it when the other side grabs their turf.
More important, though, triangulators depict the other party as beyond the pale. Clinton repeatedly referred to Republican leaders as extremists. He loved to maneuver them into positions where they would reinforce this image.
According to an internal memo that Morris later published in his memoirs, the Oklahoma City bombing "afforded an important political opportunity." Morris and other political consultants saw political gain in the "Extremist Issue vs. Republicans." They urged Clinton to use "cultural differences with the radical right to separate it from the norms of American culture" just as "Nixon stressed patriotism and mainstream values against the culture of demonstrators." Clinton proposed actions to curb right-wing hate groups and their access to weapons. When Republicans opposed such plans, they inadvertently linked themselves to violent crackpots.
Bush is taking a tough political approach toward Democrats who oppose him on Iraq and terrorism. Late last year, the Republican National Committee ran a television ad saying: "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists. Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others."
The ad enraged the blue-hots. Nevertheless, Bush alluded to the same message in his State of the Union address, saying that some lawmakers "did not support the liberation of Iraq." In an obvious jab at Howard Dean, he added: "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."
Bush may be reaping political benefits just as Clinton did, but triangulation has a cost. In 1998, GOP anger climaxed in impeachment. The effort backfired on Republicans, but it scarred Clinton's reputation and diminished his political effectiveness. While no impeachment looms on Bush's horizon, blue-hot antagonism has made it harder for him to secure Democratic congressional votes.
And triangulation necessarily involves some distance from one's own party on Capitol Hill. Liberal Democratic lawmakers seethed when Clinton compromised with Republicans. Now some conservatives are faulting Bush for the growth of government spending and the expanding federal deficit. The president's proposal for a manned mission to Mars does not necessarily belong to one party or the other, but some on the right worry that a visit to the Red Planet could permanently make America a land of Red Ink.
To some extent, GOP criticisms may help Bush's image by making him appear more moderate. On the other hand, they fuel public concerns about rising deficits. They also make it harder for Bush to run against "Democratic overspending." That charge, a staple of GOP rhetoric for years, is now in danger of flunking the giggle test.
Clinton supported gay rights, but disappointed Democratic liberals when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Conversely, Bush emphasizes his support for the traditional family, but his stand on the issue has frustrated conservative Republicans. Though his State of the Union address suggested that it might someday be necessary to pass a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, he has not explicitly endorsed such a measure.
In dealing with his party, Bush has two advantages that President Clinton lacked. First, he is a wartime commander-in-chief. Many Republicans defer to him on national security issues, and they close ranks with him when Democrats attack.
Second, he has helped Republicans at the voting booth. In 1994, Democrats lost both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years, and many of them blamed Clinton's political bungling. Two years later, some blamed him for their failure to retake Congress, saying that he had hoarded party money for his re-election instead of helping Democratic congressional candidates. In 2002, by contrast, Bush helped the GOP increase its House majority and regain control of the Senate.
Of course, Republican majorities are in Bush's best interest. If Democrats came back to power in Congress, they would use their control of committees to make life miserable for the administration. At that point, he would face the revenge of the blue-hots.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc. |
