Good for Bush, Bad for the GOP
Why a popular president doesn't benefit his party
by Fred Barnes
REPUBLICANS ARE REVELING in the sky-high poll numbers of President Bush, but there's a downside. As a popular war president, Bush is mostly unable to help his party. Worse for Republicans, Bush is subject to constraints that may actually harm his party. A top priority for Bush is to keep the nation, and particularly Democrats and Republicans in Congress, behind the war effort. To achieve that, Bush has accepted limitations on his political role. He's declined to campaign this year for GOP candidates. He's no longer the public champion of a Republican agenda. Even on war-related issues, he rarely promotes his own proposals or those of congressional Republicans. He doesn't criticize Democrats.
weeklystandard.com
Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush has become Mr. Bipartisan. This is all but required of a war president. The attacks caused Bush's approval rating to reach 90 percent, but it's his performance post-September 11 that's kept it there. He's forged a congenial working relationship with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt. They've had only one sharp disagreement (when Daschle said he wouldn't bring up more judicial nominations this year). On the conduct of the war, there's been no serious Democratic dissent. The result is Bush has the luxury of speaking for a united America on the war.
But he's sacrificed the luxury of speaking as the leader of the GOP. In fact, he's leaned so far toward the middle he's occasionally tilted in favor of Democrats. He made concessions to Democrats on an economic stimulus package without insisting on Republican-backed elements. This upset conservatives in Congress, who felt abandoned. They pressured the White House into enunciating four "principles" for inclusion in a stimulus package: expensing, repeal of the alternate minimum tax for business, acceleration of income tax rate reductions, a rebate for non-income taxpayers. "He had to be pushed into going that far," says a Republican lobbyist. "But you have to please your own party to be truly bipartisan. Otherwise, it's not bipartisan, it's Democratic. The White House missed this initially."
To the pleasant surprise of House Republican leaders, Bush actively pressed for the version of an aviation security bill preferred by conservatives. He made phone calls and met in the Oval Office with waverers. His lobbyists, including chief congressional liaison Nick Calio, showed up for strategy sessions at whip Tom DeLay's office. The Republican measure won in the House. But Bush also undercut the effort by disclosing that he'd happily sign the Democratic bill (it would make airport screeners federal employees and create a new federal agency). That bill, which cleared the Senate, may yet emerge from a House-Senate conference.
The signal that Bush would no longer stump for Republican candidates or raise money came on October 25 when he cancelled a speaking engagement for the Republican Governors Association. Vice President Dick Cheney spoke instead. Noting this, a strategist for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Mark Earley ceased daily pleas to the White House for a day of campaigning by Bush in Virginia. The president also skipped a private fund-raiser for Earley in Washington. All the Earley campaign got was a tepid letter of endorsement. In New Jersey, Bret Schundler, the GOP candidate for governor, got one too. Bush also taped get-out-the-vote radio messages for the two campaigns. Michael Bloomberg, the Republican nominee for mayor of New York City, didn't get a letter or a tape.
What's aggravating for Republicans about Bush's decision to politically disarm is they can't grouse publicly. "The president's not partisan enough, he's too nice to Democrats" -- complaints like that would sound petty, perhaps unpatriotic. But even if Bush did campaign furiously for Republican office-seekers, it might only make things worse. President Franklin Roosevelt did that in 1942 and was seen as too political for a war president. Despite FDR's popularity, Democrats lost 55 House and 9 Senate seats that year.
In other years, the war president's party has fared better, but still poorly. With Harry Truman as president and the Korean war unresolved, Democrats lost 5 Senate and 29 House seats in 1950. In 1966 as the Vietnam buildup was accelerating under Lyndon Johnson, Democrats lost 4 Senate and 47 House seats. In 1986, America was winning the Cold War under Ronald Reagan. Republicans dropped 8 Senate and 5 House seats.
Here's the worst part for Republicans: Not only has the war on terrorism brought out the best in Bush -- partly at the GOP's expense -- it's also brought out the best in Democrats. They've quit whining about a stolen presidency. They wear American flag pins in their lapels. They're pro-defense, pro-intervention, and pro-bombing. Some members of the former party of doves -- Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Joe Lieberman -- sound more hawkish than Bush. I asked Sen. Edward Kennedy for his assessment of Bush as a war president. "He's been an inspiring figure," Kennedy said, "and he's been able to get a good deal of respect and support around the world and here at home." He didn't have a single critical word. Oddly enough, that's bad news for Republicans.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
November 12, 2001 - Volume 7, Number 9 |
