Bush Making Sure He Doesn't Forget 'Working Families'

Although Democrats hope to use the Enron scandal and the Bush administration's environmental record to paint the GOP as too close to corporate America, the President isn't making that easy for them. Indeed, President Bush, more than other Republican chief executives before him, seems intent on neutralizing the Democrats' advantage among working-class voters.

Bush's gambit isn't a mere political sideshow; it has huge implications. For if the President is successful, he not only improves his party's chances in this year's midterm elections but also makes his own re-election in 2004 a virtual certainty.

The Democrats often seem schizophrenic when it comes to their message. While their legislative leaders inevitably toy with the Democratic Leadership Council's rhetoric and agenda, they usually revert back to an economic populism that sometimes borders on class warfare.

Given the war on terrorism and the limited salience of domestic issues, Democratic strategists are once again likely to settle on a message for November that portrays their opponents as captives of "big business."

"Democrats should hold the Republicans and the Bush Administration responsible for squandering the opportunity to solve some of our country's biggest problems because they prefer huge tax cuts for the most privileged supporters," Democratic consultants James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum wrote in their most recent Democracy Corps memo.

Enron "leads voters to believe the Republicans in general, and the White House in particular, favors powerful corporate interests over ordinary Americans," the trio asserted.

Before Sept. 11, Bush's stances on arsenic in the water supply, power plant emissions and global warming made him very vulnerable to charges that his administration was more interested in paying back corporate supporters than in protecting the little guy.

After the terrorist attacks, however, the administration's critics have had a tougher time. While drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and a high-level resignation at the Environmental Protection Agency are keeping the environmental issue alive, domestic matters in general have faded in significance. The issues of the environment and corporate influence on the Bush White House, even after the collapse of Enron and weeks of heavy media coverage, simply aren't as effective for the Democrats as they were a year ago.

But the Democrats have another problem. Bush administration strategist Karl Rove apparently has decided that he won't allow opponents to portray this White House as out of touch on issues of concern to working families. In other words, this President Bush won't make the same mistakes - or suffer the same fate - as his father.

Bush press spokesman Ari Fleischer never fails to mention the President's concern about the job market. And even when new economic numbers show a recovering economy, Fleischer notes that not everyone is benefiting from the recovery and that the President is looking for more job growth.

The only truly silly statement from the administration so far has come from Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who is now publicly insisting that the U.S. economy never went into recession. Clearly, the economy contracted dramatically over the past year and a half, slashing corporate profits and triggering layoffs. Arguing over the definition of a "recession" can only make O'Neill and the administration look insensitive.

Democratic insiders admit that their allies in organized labor are increasingly concerned that Bush is "borrowing" Democratic language about jobs and worry that the President will be able to neutralize traditional Democratic themes.

It doesn't take much of an imagination to see Rove making a major play for the Teamsters to secure an endorsement in 2004. That union, which is working with the White House to persuade Congress to approve drilling in ANWR, has not always followed the lead of the AFL-CIO. The Teamsters has already signaled that it will back Michigan Secretary of State Candice Miller (R) over Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga (D) in a competitive race in Michigan's redrawn open 10th district.

"At least in terms of rhetoric, there is no question but that the administration is trying to pick off individual unions one issue at a time," one labor strategist agreed.

But it's not only a question of Bush appealing to rank-and-file members of organized labor by advocating drilling in the Arctic or imposing tariffs on imported steel. The President's emphasis on jobs and sensitivity to working-class concerns can have a broader impact by making it more difficult for Democratic candidates and strategists to run against the Republican "big business" stereotype later this year and in 2004.

That would broaden Republican candidates' appeal among swing groups generally, at least partially neutralizing one of the Democrats' most reliable campaign messages.

With House Democrats unable to do much, it's up to Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (S.D.) and Senate Democrats to find a way to interject working-class and union issues into the national debate this year. An expected Senate vote on trade promotion authority and a possible debate over partial Social Security privatization certainly could help, but even those moves may not be enough if the President continues to use his rhetoric - and personal charm - to woo working-class voters.

Pandering to people who won't vote for you rarely works. Shore up the base and stay on topic worked for Reagan.

I'm sure you remember the term "Reagan Democrat." I think Bush wants them, too.

Pandering to people who won't vote for you rarely works. Shore up the base and stay on topic worked for Reagan.

On what do you base this? Working-class folks in Southern and heartland states are part of his base. He'd be in Austin today without their overwhelming support in 200.

People don't always vote their pocketbook. It was cultural issues that carried W among $30k-a-year families in "Red" America and lost him $100k-a-year voters in "Blue" states.

I'd say it's pretty darn imperative to burnish your economic credentials among these core supporters if he wants to keep them out of the orbit of the class-warfare crowd.

Reagan didn't pander to them. They voted for him because they liked his conservative message. Reagan didn't promise them government money and new regulations to support him. The followed him; he didn't chase after them

You can't outspend a Democrat.

He prays with world leaders like Blair and Putin. He ends ABM. He moves forward on ANWR and opening the forests to the effective use of public land. He puts Condi Rice, a women with more savvy than the entire Clinton foreign service team, out in front of the world and you want him to do WHAT? He is to the right of Regan!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.