Ken Feltman is a very astute guy. Here's a column on how he sees W's recent problems:
radnor-inc.com
You can’t fall off the floor
Mischief put upon the world?
You can’t fall off the floor. That’s the good news for President Bush. We all know the bad news: it is all over the media, all the time.
Analysts and pundits are coming up with reasons for the president's problems. Many point to one or another symbolic event - the continuing bloodshed and apparent stalemate in Iraq; the failed nomination of Harriet Miers; the Scooter Libby indictment; the Democrats' relentless pounding away at Bush. None of these is the reason. All combined, they are not the reasons.
A few months ago, some commentators said that the White House’s problems go back to the failure of Bush’s Social Security reform plan. But focus groups continue to show that the issue is winning over younger voters who represent tomorrow's electoral balance. The problem seems to be the handling of the issue, not the issue itself. Others point to the Hurricane Katrina photo of Bush seated safely in Air Force One, looking down on the chaos and suffering below; the photo became a metaphor for the remoteness of Bush’s approach.
Symbolically if not actually, all of these, and each of these, eroded support for Bush. But the real reason is more basic: the White House has lost control. Lacking the tight control that was its hallmark, the White House has looked indecisive, evasive, confused and embattled. The critics are being heard. Emboldened, new critics have arisen and former supporters have become more skeptical, even critical. The President’s plunge in the polls is a direct result.
No help from Capitol Hill
Usually, when a president runs into difficulties, the leaders of his party in Congress step up and take some of the arrows aimed at the president. That cannot happen now. The Republican leadership in the House is dealing with the indictment of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Personally ambitious potential successors to DeLay have found their ambition exceeded by their ineptness at the exercise of power. They look craven, not competent.
Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist has ethical problems. His surprisingly clumsy and tone-deaf approach to his personal problems has paralleled his handling of the nettlesome behavior of Senate Democrats. Time and again, the Democrats come across as sourpusses but the Republicans react with immaturity. The public is not amused. All of this means that President Bush is a less effective leader because of his declining poll ratings. This is especially crucial during wartime. A weakened president faces difficulties in promoting his agenda at home—and sometimes insurmountable difficulties in promoting his agenda abroad.
A review of embattled presidents over the last hundred years shows that other nations may suffer the consequences of a weakened president more than the people of the United States. During wartime, the power of the president to make unilateral decisions is paramount. When events erode the president’s popular support at home, the president’s independence of movement is impeded. If President Bush loses the political middle, he will need almost total support from his base on the right. If the right cracks, as it did with the Miers nomination, he will not be able to take decisive action. This has happened to other presidents.
Can you lead when you're flat on the floor?
After World War I, President Woodrow Wilson found that his unpopularity undermined his idealistic goals for the League of Nations; the League eventually failed. Other nations had their hopes of an international organization dashed in part because Wilson was a wounded leader at home. In his second term, President Franklin D. Roosevelt plummeted in popularity through a series of mostly self-inflicted wounds. Roosevelt could not take decisive action against isolationist sentiment and bring the United States into the Second World War until after Pearl Harbor. We can only wonder how many lives in Europe and in Asia might have been saved—and how many Americans might not have died—if Roosevelt had been able to commit the United States earlier.
When President Harry Truman’s support at home declined precipitously, he was unable even to contemplate decisive action during the Korean War; the war ended in the stalemate that plagues us to this day. President Lyndon Johnson found that domestic unrest destroyed his Presidency; he was prevented from taking decisive action in Vietnam or at home. President Richard Nixon, as well, was incapable of decisive action as Watergate unraveled his Presidency. President Gerald Ford, by the time of the final North Vietnamese assault, had little public support left. His standing with the public began to disintegrate when he pardoned Nixon.
President Bill Clinton, on the other hand, retained the personal support of his party and most Americans in the middle. His problems were personal. Despite impeachment, he was able to commit the United States to decisive military action in Kosovo, Bosnia and Serbia.
Does Bush have sufficient support to make unilateral decisions, especially about committing U.S. military strength abroad? Could he order an attack on, for example, Iran’s nuclear reactors? Could he withdraw troops from Iraq without appearing to be capitulating? Could he come to the defense of a weaker ally attacked by a stronger foe? He is being tested now.
President Gulliver?
Clearly, the rest of the world recognizes Bush’s weakness. Other nations have long experience with the American political cycle and they are familiar with periodic Presidential weakness. They know that the United States is an incredibly powerful nation that, because of the internal political situation, may be unable to unleash its strength. Is this one of those times? Is Bush like Jonathan Swift's Gulliver, tied down by hundreds of tiny people using thousands of tiny threads?
At moments like this, ambitious secondary powers test and probe. Iran has done this recently, with a statement by its newly elected president that Israel should be wiped off the map. Surely, the Iranians were not the only ones to note that the response by the Bush Administration was muted; even France condemned the Iranian statement in harsher terms. Does this mean that the Iranians might test the United States’ resolve further? Of course it does. We should expect that Iran will push and push and push until it encounters tough resistance. Is Bush capable of toughness now?
The Chinese understand that Bush is weakened. They can be expected to accelerate their recent probing. The Russians are pushing and probing, emboldened by oil riches and Bush's problems. What can Bush do if he fails to strengthen his standing with the American people? The answer is a simple one: not much.
How serious is Bush’s slippage? Let’s look for an answer in the withdrawal of the nomination to the Supreme Court of Harriet Miers. The Miers nomination quickly drew the opposition of Bush’s base among socially conservative Republicans. Had Bush been stronger, he would have been able to weather that storm from the right. But his overall weakness, especially in the political middle, eliminated his options because he could not afford to lose the core support of social conservatives. The Miers nomination was scuttled.
The core constituencies
The social conservatives are one of several core constituencies within the Republican Party. Two other important constituencies are economic conservatives and national security conservatives. The Miers withdrawal shored up support—or at least stopped erosion—among one of these three core constituencies. The nomination of Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve pleases economic conservatives, who are joined by internationalists and many business people in supporting Republicans. The continuing support of national security conservatives is vital to Bush but less certain. The conduct of the Iraq war and the Libby indictment in the Valerie Plame outing have created caution and questions.
The national security constituency, itself, is composed of different elements. First, members of the U.S. Armed forces and their families tend to be extremely loyal to the Commander-in-Chief; but today they are restive and unhappy with the Bush Administration’s failure to halt frequent and long deployments and to send in a sufficient force to end the conflict in Iraq.
Another element of the national security constituency believes that Republicans are more effective at conducting a 'realistic' foreign policy. That group of conservatives is now beginning to rethink the Bush Presidency. All of this means that enough elements of the national security core are in flux to put the entire Bush Presidency in doubt.
That is why the rest of the world has a stake in whether President Bush regains his footing. Experience shows that people the world over can be harmed when an American president loses the ability to take decisive action.
Forty years ago Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen cautioned his fellow Republicans against being pleased at the crumbling of the Johnson Presidency: 'Much mischief is put upon the world when an American President is weak.' |
