Why do you think Bush has failed to pin down lasting support from a majority of moderates and independents, as measured by numerous polls?
1 - We live in partisan polarized times (at least relative to recent US history, not compared to some other periods of our history or some other countries). Its hard for anyone to get a strong majority of either the overall population or the "moderates and independents".
2 - Iraq has been more difficult then some statements by people in the Bush administration have suggested. While Bush himself never said it would be easy or quick, his "mission accomplished" and "major combat operations are over", while in a sense technically accurate, have contributed to disappointment.
3 - In addition to any overly positive statements, or other problems Bush and his administration might have caused in terms of trying to get people to support the war; any war that drags on is likely to cause a president to lose support.
4 - Some of the "moderates and independents" care a lot about the deficit. Mainly do to increased spending the deficit has increased a noticeable amount under Bush.
5 - The response to Katrina was not as good as it could have been, and the perception of the federal response is probably even worse then the actual response.
Also interested in why you think his support among conservatives has plummeted from the 80's to 61%.
Some of the same reasons given above, in particular the deficit. Also not just the deficit but the main reason for it (spending increases) is a particular sore spot for many conservatives. Other reasons include appointing Miers who many conservatives thought a poor choice, and other disappointments where conservatives feel that Bush hasn't stood up for their ideas, or has just given the conservative ideas lip service. Also conservative support for Bush was, like his general support, unrealalistically inflated by the reaction to 9/11. There was no way Bush was going to keep those very high ratings even if he could have kept a higher rating then what he is getting now.
For another conservative's answer you can go to the column written by John O'Sullivan in the October 24th issue of National Review. He looked back at a column he wrote in 2001 ("a month or so before 9/11"). He laid out three things that he thought Bush had to get right, and gives Bush poor grades overall. The three things? 1 - Halting the advance of the regulatory state. 2 - Restoring national unity to an increasingly balkanized America. 3 - Preventing the rise of an anti-American united Europe that would divide the west.
O'Sullivan gives Bush the best marks on the first, but still not great marks. He points to a survey by James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation that shows that GW has issued fewer regulations with a lower total cost, then his recent predecessors. But O'Sullivan also points out that Bush has a much weaker record on eliminating earlier regulations, and quotes Gattuso by point out that the burden of regulation was as high as $843 billion dollars "almost as heavy as the burden of income taxes." O'Sullivan sums up the score on this criteria with "Give credit where credit is due, Bush has a reasonably good record on regulation on deregulation as such. Unfortunately, that narrow record is dwarfed by the overall growth of government. Domestic discretionary spending has risen faster since 2001 than under any other president since LBJ and Nixon. Federal spending no accounts for over 20 percent -- and the federal deficit about 3 percent -- of America's GDP. New and expensive entitlements such as the prescription-drug benefit, will swell that spending in the future... Much of this runaway spending has been directly urged by the president. None of it has he even attempted to veto."
O'Sullivan gives Bush poor marks on the other two criteria. Summing up with "On my three tests Bush has not gained even one passing grade. If he has not actually failed, that is because the time limit has not yet run out. And with only three years to go the president has to hurry..."
What does he stand for, and why can't he galvanize a lasting majority behind his presidency?
Good questions. Bush apparently stands for lower taxes (or at least has accepted that he would lose most of his remaining support if he tried to raise taxes). He has apparently come to stand for aggressive use of US power overseas in an effort to promote democracy and combat terrorists and WMD programs in "rogue states". I could try to make a case for more, but I would be uncertain of my own case. I might have a better idea of what Bush stands for than of what Clinton or Bush Sr. stood for but I don't really have a very solid idea. As I said before he is much less of an ideological zealot then the left and some in the center, credit him with being. Its easier to say what an ideologue stands for then it is to talk about the core beliefs of someone less focused on ideology.
Why can't he galvanize a lasting majority? Well that's often a hard thing, and specifically is a hard thing in today's America. Not only are things fairly divided right now, but we don't have the type of crisis that FDR had with the Depression and then WWII which could get a lasting majority behind a whole new paradigm. Sure we have had the internet bubble collapse, and 9/11, and Iraq, but they are much smaller issues then something like the depression or WWII. Also except possibly in terms of military intervention overseas (and there are no signs of any major effort beyond Iraq and Afghanistan so this is more of a couple of particular deployments with some lip service paid to a new paradigm then a major continuing change in US security doctrine), Bush really isn't trying to take the country in a major new direction. He floated entitlement reform but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere and Bush doesn't seem to even talk about it much anymore. Also he pushed through a new entitlement program. He cut taxes, but he didn't slash them, or hold the line on spending which might have enabled future tax cuts. He reduced the rate of new regulation, but hasn't really rolled it back.
What does it mean for the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 race?
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
- Niels Bohr
Right now I would say the Dems would make gains in 2006, and 2008 is too soon to tell esp. because we don't know the candidates.
Is there a Bush coalition that a successor can turn to?
There are a fair number of people who have consistently supported Bush, even if they are a minority, but I don't know if I would call them a Bush coalition. They probably support him for different reasons. I don't think the majority of this support is personally tied to Bush or to new ideas that Bush has initiated or pushed far beyond their previous levels.
Tim |
