Brace yourself: George Bush reckons what's good for the Republicans is good for America

From The Economist print edition ^ | Oct 17th 2002 | Lexington

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Partisan-in-chief

GEORGE BUSH likes to pretend that he is above party politics: just a regular guy trying to do his best for the country. He has always made a great to-do about reaching across party lines: remember how he wooed Ted Kennedy over education reform. And he takes every opportunity to escape from Washington's partisan bickering for the bracing common sense of his Texas ranch. Don't believe a word of it. Mr Bush is as partisan a president as America has had.

The laid-back Mr Bush is, in fact, a whirlwind of partisan energy. He has spent more time on the campaign trail than any of his predecessors, and raised far more money for next month's elections ($140m and counting). He plans to hit the road for 14 straight days before the election, sweeping through as many as four states a day and visiting all those with tight Senate races.

Mr Bush has used a disputed election victory to push through a strikingly radical agenda, on everything from tax cuts to military pre-emption. At the same time, he has refashioned the Republican Party in his easy-going image, urging it to swap the angry snarl of Gingrichism for the smiling face of compassionate conservatism. Previous presidents have used placemen to keep an eye on the party machinery. Mr Bush has centralised control of the party in the White House. Karl Rove, Mr Bush's closest adviser, has a hand in everything from shaping high policy to choosing local candidates.

Republicans will bristle at the comparison, but Mr Bush is Clintonian in both his partisanship and his energy

Republicans will bristle at the comparison, but Mr Bush is Clintonian in both his partisanship and his energy. Dwight Eisenhower hardly concealed his disdain for his party. Ronald Reagan—a man who really did go to his ranch to relax—put little energy into supporting Republican candidates, and his party lost 26 congressional seats in the 1982 election. Mr Bush's father had little time for Republican hardliners. The son is thoroughly at home in the world of the permanent campaign.

But Mr Bush has one huge advantage over Mr Clinton: people believe the guff about his being above politics. Mr Clinton could not say “good morning” without people parsing the remark for its political meaning. Mr Bush manages to look above politics even when he is out stumping for his fellow Republicans.

The sheer chutzpah of his performance is driving the Democrats crazy. One moment he is talking about the “urgency” of the Iraqi threat. The next he is spending a fortnight on the campaign trail. One moment he is saying that “we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans.” The next he is saying that the Democrat-led Senate is “not interested in the security of the American people”.

Yet they can't lay a glove on him. The majority of Americans regard Mr Bush as a symbol of national resolve rather than as a fallible politician. Opinion polls show that voters don't hold him responsible for the corporate scandals, economic woes or intelligence failures of the past couple of years. Mr Bush enjoys the fruits of partisanship without the thorns.

The most obvious reason for this is September 11th and all that. The country's need to rally around national symbols after the explosion of international terrorism fits in perfectly with Mr Bush's desire to present himself as being above politics. But the Democrats also have themselves to blame. The essence of the Democratic case against Mr Bush has always been that he is too stupid and lazy to be president. They cannot suddenly change gears and accuse him of being a cunning partisan and a hyper-active campaigner. Add to this the fact that the previous Democratic presidency was a by-word for partisanship, and Mr Bush has licence to be as partisan as he likes.

How far is Mr Bush willing to take this licence? Some Democrats accuse him of exploiting the war on terrorism to get Republicans elected. Robert Byrd, on the Senate floor, has described his behaviour as “despicable”. Any number of campus leftists have accused him of inventing the whole drama in order to distract attention from corporate corruption and economic malaise.

There is some truth to the first charge. Mr Rove has repeatedly told Republicans that focusing on the war is the best way to “maintain a positive issue environment”. But there is a huge difference between wagging the dog (inventing an unnecessary war in order to win an election) and wagging the donkey (wringing partisan advantage out of a necessary conflict).

And maybe the clever thing is the right thing...

In the past year, Mr Bush has never wavered in his focus on the war on terrorism. He was an early convert to the idea that terrorist states and terrorist cells are two faces of the same evil. Was he really supposed to abandon the war against terrorism for the duration of the campaigning season? Was he really supposed to forget about building support in Congress and the United Nations until after November? The wag-the-dog accusers may have got things upside down: the once-lackadaisical Mr Bush may be campaigning so hard precisely because he thinks electing Republicans will help the war on terrorism. After all, almost everyone who voted against giving him war powers was a Democrat.

No wonder Republicans regard George Bush as the best thing that has happened to their party since Ronald Reagan

The president's scheme of wrapping himself in the flag while pursuing a partisan agenda carries big risks. The memory of September 11th will eventually fade. The Democrats will learn how to land a few punches. The White House will one day have to deal with the contradiction between boosting spending on security and cutting taxes. A potential backlash could diminish the presidency as well as damaging Mr Bush and his party.

But for the moment Mr Bush's strategy is succeeding spectacularly well. A month ago it looked as if the Democrats stood a good chance of taking both Houses. Now, thanks to Mr Bush's tireless campaigning and relentless focus on Iraq, the Republicans have a reasonable chance of picking up seats in the House and retaking the Senate. No wonder they regard him as the best thing that has happened to their party since Mr Reagan.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

This is a remarkably shallow and naive analysis of President Bush's campaigning. The article does not consider that the President can be sincere on the war on terrorism and partisan in campaigning. I'm glad the American people are not this naive.

[Paul Atreides]

The left is becoming so shrill and predictable that they are becoming boring.

[order_of_reason]

And I once respected The Economist's views....

[Huck]

Being a partisan Republican is not morally or ethically equivelant to being a partisan Democrat. Just like in the old days: being anti-Communist and pro-Communist were not morally equivelant, though the left insisted they were. Wrong again.

[caisson71]

It's amazing that when liberals want to demean someone, they compare them to the "Klintoon".

[js1138]

Opinion polls show that voters don't hold him responsible for the corporate scandals, economic woes or intelligence failures of the past couple of years.

Perhaps flyover people know the source of these troubles. Hint: there were no major white collar crime prosecutions under clinton. And nothing but abuse for the CIA and FBI.

[Puddleglum]

Perhaps flyover people know the source of these troubles. Hint: there were no major white collar crime prosecutions under clinton. And nothing but abuse for the CIA and FBI.

Sometimes I see the "Flyover Republic of America" becoming more than a metaphor, making our old atlases obsolete. I think a lot of people in flyover land are getting tired of the media blaring at them what to believe and can see through it. People who still remember the rights, responsibilities, and honor of citizenship don't take kindly to the hijinks the Left have been playing, electoral and otherwise. It shows how dissociated some journalists and belway pundits are that they are shocked to find a people who do not need their values and beliefs cut, like a weakened drink, with a big ol' dose of modernism and humanism.

[Petronski]

And I once respected The Economist's views....

The Economist was once respectable.

[taxcontrol]

BWAAHHAAAHAHHHAHAHAAAAA

Oh stop! Your killing me! Oh this is great. After 8 years of the Teflon Philander-in-Chief Klintoon, they want to COMPLAIN???!!!!


BWAHAAAA!!!!

[Hugin]

Mr Bush has used a disputed election victory to push through a strikingly radical agenda, on everything from tax cuts to military pre-emption.

Neither of which is radical. Tax-cuts are about as mainstream a Republican issue as you can get. As for military pre-emption, there is nothing new about that. JFK did it in the Cuban missile crisis. Come to think of it, JFK also cut taxes. Does that mean Pres. Kennedy was a right-wing radical?

[Southack]

While I'm certain that those at The Economist consider this article to be mildly clever propaganda for their left-wing causes, the abuse of the useage of the term "partisan" can hardly be labeled intelligent (much less respectable).

To keep it simple enough for even brainwashed socialists to comprehend, "partisan" is when the same Democrats, such as Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller, vote FOR the use of force (without UN inspectors or UN approval) against Serbia in Kosovo while Clinton is in office, but then vote AGAINST the use of force while Bush is in charge.

On the other hand, inviting Democrats into the White House for daily meetings, soliting their input on bills, and gaining their votes is called "bi-partisanship".

In contrast, campaigning for your party and against the other party is NOT an anti-cooperative political activity (as the Economist implies).

Not that they care to understand the truth, however...

[Mordoch]

Mr Bush has used a disputed election victory to push through a strikingly radical agenda, on everything from tax cuts to military pre-emption.

Radical agenda????? LOL

Radical to a flaming liberal maybe. Not nearly radical enough for a conservative.

[Mute]

But Mr Bush has one huge advantage over Mr Clinton: people believe the guff about his being above politics. Mr Clinton could not say “good morning” without people parsing the remark for its political meaning. Mr Bush manages to look above politics even when he is out stumping for his fellow Republicans.

Just a guess, but I think that may have something to do with the fact that Bush obviously believes what he's saying, whereas Clinton obviously said whatever he thought his audience wanted to hear.

The essence of the Democratic case against Mr Bush has always been that he is too stupid and lazy to be president. They cannot suddenly change gears and accuse him of being a cunning partisan and a hyper-active campaigner.

This statement is the only thing that's stupid. The Democrats have "changed gears" so many times already, they probably have to check the latest DNC memo every time they open their mouths to keep their story straight.

But there is a huge difference between wagging the dog (inventing an unnecessary war in order to win an election) and wagging the donkey (wringing partisan advantage out of a necessary conflict).

Now that one, I like. Wagging the donkey. That could catch on.

The president's scheme of wrapping himself in the flag while pursuing a partisan agenda carries big risks. The memory of September 11th will eventually fade.

Back to stupid again. Can the author really believe that the American people think this war is anywhere near being won? If we really are that stupid, we deserve whatever happens to us.

The White House will one day have to deal with the contradiction between boosting spending on security and cutting taxes.

You mean the way Reagan had to deal with it? By winning reelection in a landslide and going down in history as one of the most popular Presidents ever? I think Bush could live with that.

... the Republicans have a reasonable chance of picking up seats in the House and retaking the Senate.

This seems to be the conventional wisdom, especially here on FR. I'm not seeing it. I give the Republicans about 1 chance in 4 to win control of the Senate.

[Navy Patriot]

People who still remember the rights, responsibilities, and honor of citizenship don't take kindly to the hijinks the Left have been playing, electoral and otherwise.

It seems to me that the map of the U.S.A., released just after the election, showing the red Bush counties and blue Gore counties pretty much proves your point.

[sweetliberty]

This "analysis" is so ridiculous. If Bush crossed party lines any more than he has, he'd be a democrat. I mean no disrespect by that statement, simply that he has done what he said he would to a fault. Maybe it is high time he focused on the Republican agenda. If course I'm sure that if Gore were in office he would never do anything so partisan. < /sarcasm >

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Remember this is an editorial, and the conservative Tory party is about the same as a conservative Democrat in the US. So everything is shifted to the left. The Economist isn't normally this dumb.