Rush Compares Bush to Nixon [actual title: Bush '04 Strategy More Nixon Than Reagan]

Actual text of Rush's article:

1:15 PM ET BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

Consider this story by Steven E. Schier in The Hill magazine, "President Bush - A Radical With a Plan." Quote: "President Bush has had a rough summer, beset by a troublesome military occupation of Iraq, growing budget deficits and media challenges to his credibility." Get that: "media challenges." That's horse manure. These are not just "media." They may as well be elected Democrats. That's who's challenging Bush. They're one and the same.

More: "Lately, the White House has fought back hard in response to its Democratic critics. Why such an aggressive approach? The Bush presidency has a huge project at its heart, one now suddenly threatened by adverse events. The White House forcefulness towards its critics reflects the unusually large scale of Bush’s presidential ambitions. Bush’s goal is a big one — to make the Republicans the natural, default party of government." Where have we heard this before? I guess this is this guy's version of The BIG Theory. "Karl Rove, the president’s chief political strategist, frequently mentions durable GOP dominance as a major goal of the Bush presidency. Bush seeks lasting conservative rule over American politics, completion of the rightward revolution begun by Ronald Reagan.

"The Bush administration is working steadily to create conservative dominance over political institutions, party and interest group alignments and the terms of policy debate. In the terms of Yale University political scientist Stephen Skowronek, Bush is an 'orthodox innovator' trying to adapt the Reagan approach for the 21st century. As James K. Polk restored the Democratic Party in the 1840s and Teddy Roosevelt reinvigorated the GOP at the turn of the 20th century, so Bush hopes to create a new Republican political coalition than can dominate national politics long after he leaves the White House.

"The risk for such orthodox-innovators, according to Skowronek, is that their innovations split their coalitions and end their party’s dominance, as Roosevelt’s progressivism divided the GOP in 1912. So far, Bush has avoided that fate. Instead, his strategy, described to me by a White House official as 'base-plus,' seems to be working. The GOP base loves Bush, though his hold on centrist voters remains uncertain. If his proposed tax cuts stimulate the economy in time for the 2004 election and international events do not turn against the White House, Bush’s long-term strategy will have an improved chance of succeeding.

"The worst news of the summer for Bush concerns the budget deficit, now likely to exceed $450 billion next year. His GOP base may well fracture in the long-term over the problem of large and persistent budget deficits resulting from his tax cuts." The base concerned about the deficit? Dream on! The base isn't going to care a rat's hair about it. "Deficits pose three political difficulties for his project. First, large deficits over time will produce increasing disunity among Congressional Republicans. Complaints about this year’s deficit are already issuing from GOP ranks on Capitol Hill. Second, deficits hand Democrats a national issue with which to put the GOP on the defensive.

"Bush’s own father — an orthodox innovator who failed — found both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot effectively hammering him on the issue in 1992. Third, high deficits endanger other central policy goals of the administration, such as an increased defense buildup and Social Security privatization. The Bush administration promises tight spending control to reduce deficits. Its first two years in office do not seem to guarantee future discipline. Federal spending in 2001 and 2002 grew more than it did during Clinton’s first four years in office.

"And if such discipline is attempted, how will swing voters react to cuts in popular programs? Building a dominant conservative coalition for the long term is a task beset with practical political difficulties. This is an administration bent on huge changes in American politics and public policy and willing to take big risks to achieve them. Right now, they’re fighting hard to retain the political initiative behind this big project, facing some of the biggest political challenges of Bush’s presidency. Whether or not they succeed, the Bush presidency promises to enter the history books as one of the most politically ambitious of all time – because of its efforts to reshape the entire political landscape."

The author here, Steven Schier is Congdon Professor of Political Science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. He's editor of a forthcoming book on the early presidency of George W. Bush. In essence, this is his version of the BIG Theory in which the president and his advisors are basically counting on the fact that the base will be their support no matter what, and they're going out there advancing a domestic agenda designed to attract Democrat liberal moderate centrist pinko voters to expand to the Republican base, make it so big that there's no longer a viable Democratic Party. So let me try to deal with this the most delicate way that I can.

I have pointed out every fact raised in this piece to one degree or another, over the course of the past three or four months, every fact raised in this piece. The problem with this piece is its conclusion, I think, which I just shared with you. This base plus approach is nothing new. Everybody tries this. Reagan reached out to the blue-collar and religious Democrats back in the '80s. I mean, that's where the phrase "Reagan Democrats" comes from. And as I've said repeatedly, he did so without stiffing his base time and time again. Back in the '80s, nobody who voted for Reagan was upset with what he was doing on the domestic agenda. I'll telling you, folks, nobody was. Yet the Reagan Democrats loved this guy.

The electoral strategic model that is being followed by the Bush operatives is not Reaganesque. Here comes the biggie...it's Nixonesque. Wait a minute, folks. Just hang on. I don't say that with any intent to diminish either Nixon or Bush. This is an analytical fact. Remember, just as Reagan won two landslides, Nixon won one as well - a huge one in 1972. Now, let's look at this. Richard Nixon, like Bush, embraced, I think, too much of the left's domestic agenda in an effort to attract support beyond his own base. Look at what Nixon did. He created the Environmental Protection Agency, he created OSHA, he created revenue sharing - which is the kind now touted by Hillary Clinton for the so-called homeland security purposes.

Nixon was the first president to put real teeth in the affirmative action laws, in case you're too young to know or have forgotten. It was Nixon who imposed wage and price controls when unemployment was at 3%, and Nixon, Nixon relied on the weakness and the public aversion of his opponent, George McGovern, to win his landslide. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that it was any kind of political revolution from a philosophical governing viewpoint. I mean, Nixon made a beeline for the things that McGovern voters liked on the domestic side. McGovern was a pure anti-war candidate, anti-Vietnam. I know some of you are going to be scratching your heads or worse, but it's a mistake to say that what Bush is doing is Reaganesque. There are far more similarities to Nixon.

Nixon would have signed a campaign finance reform bill. Reagan wouldn't have. Nixon would have signed any major expansion of Medicare. Reagan would have vetoed that before it got to the White House. Nixon tried to blur some of the principle distinctions between conservatism and liberalism, but Reagan never blurred the difference. He always referred to limited government and repeatedly spoke of it. He challenged liberal thought and policy on virtually every front. If there's a model that's being adopted - and I think the Bushes are being somewhat original and unique here with what Rove is doing, at least in how they're executing it - it's more Nixonian. Bush told the Urban League "[W]e need active government." Those words never would have crossed Reagan's lips. They would have crossed the lips of Nixon easily. When I heard that line I thought, "Who wrote this speech? Bill Kristol?" So we're looking at similarities, but not to Reagan.

In addition here to establishing, I think, very conclusively and almost inarguably that the Bush pattern here of "base plus," or the new theory that Bush more closely replicates what Nixon did certainly more than what Reagan did, let's deal more with foreign policy and national security, shall we? The comparison to Reagan and the Reagan Revolution does work. It's one area where I will agree with Schier's piece.

Both Bush and Reagan rejected the common wisdom and they've set their undiverted sites on destroying the enemy. In Bush's case, terrorism and Al-Qaeda. In Reagan's view, the evil empire. Reagan toppled the Soviet Union by rejecting containment and appeasement. Bush has terrorists all over the world on the run by doing the exact same thing. Both Reagan and Bush have been denounced by the mainstream media - and even by members of their own party. That's because Reagan was, and because Bush is, a visionary when it comes to the national security of his country. That's the similarity. If you want the similarity between Bush and Reagan, look at foreign policy. If you want the similarity between Bush and somebody else on the domestic side, regardless of what you think of it, you will find a far closer alignment with Richard Nixon in his 1972 campaign and its governance after his landslide victory in 1972....

Furthermore, what is the Nixon legacy? "Great foreign policy president," right? It certainly is. He opened the door to China and all that sort of stuff. What do you think Bush is angling for here? He's got the base plus, the BIG Theory. But the things that Bush is doing that will end up in history books are indeed Nixonian: foreign policy and wiping out of the terrorism.

(1:40 PM EST END TRANSCRIPT)

(1:57 PM EST BEGIN TRANSCRIPT)

Mr. Snerdley desperately tried to make the case that Bush is more like Reagan on the BIG Theory than Nixon, but you can't make that case - other than tax cuts. That's really the closest you can get. A final example is that, during Wednesday's show, President Bush made remarks at the White House celebrating the 38th anniversary of Medicare. Nixon would have done that; I don't know that Reagan did, although he might have been forced to. If Reagan did do it, he didn't want to.

2:00 PM EST END FINAL TRANSCRIPT

Say what you want about Nixon, but he ended the Vietnam War.
He was, of course, crucified for it.
If you were not an adult between the Nixon/Carter(may his soul rot in hell soon)/Reagan years, you may be laboring under the impression that there was not much difference in leadership.
You would be very, very wrong.
That is historical fact, and obvious to those who lived it, vs those who read about it nowadays, in revised history books..
Now, however, there is really not that much difference between the two major parties.
Which is why most political partisans curse or bless the public, but the fact remains, not a whole lot of choice exists between the two.
If you convince yourself that over half of all eligable voters dont bother to vote anymore because they are "too busy",you must wonder what thay are "busy doing"?
Think about it.

What I'd like to know is what was so bad about Nixon's strategy in '72 anyway???? He won that election with a greater margin in the popular vote than Reagan got in either '80 or even '84 (and you can look that up). It was the largest in the popular vote in the 20th century (62% of the vote).

That's pretty damn successful politics! How can you fault someone if indeed they are following a pattern that was that successful??? Would you rather have him follow Goldwater's pattern in '64?

Now Goldwater may (or may not depending on what age you are talking about) have had a better governing philosophy...but he never did get to govern. Nixon won a tough, tight race against a sitting Vice-President and then won a landslide of monstrous proportions.

So, someone tell me, what's so bad about that?

That is historical fact, and obvious to those who lived it, vs those who read about it nowadays, in revised history books.

I was kid during the 70's but I do remember them. Gas lines, inflation, Watergate, Carter, Iran hostages, and pet rocks.

All I am trying to say that Rush is way off on his hypothesis comparing Bush to Nixon, IMO.

Bush has pushed through tax cuts, is trying to get very conservative judges on the courts, will sign a partial birth abortion ban when it reaches his desk and the demos are trying to scuttle him at every juncture.

JMO, but Rush seems to have a burr up his rear end against Bush. Could it be the education bill or the farm bill. Who knows. Personally I think that the education bill is a foot in the door for vouchers and the farm bill, well Reagan signed his share of farm bills also.

Bush embraces open borders and the New World Order, where socialism is seated in polite society, as if they belong.

Wait a minute. You mean we still have borders?!? At the right the invasion force is coming from Mexico, you could have fooled me.

You can make a decent case that Bush is **more** conservative than even Reagan.

Reagan was a great President, but Reagan didn't kill the U.S.-CCCP ABM Treaty. Bush did.

Reagan was a great Conservative, but Reagan didn't tell the Supreme Court that the **OFFICIAL** U.S. government policy view of the 2nd Amendment was that it protected INDIVIDUAL rights, rather than the so-called "collective" rights favored by the anti-gunners and Leftists everywhere. Bush did.

Bush will also be signing a ban on Partial Birth Abortion this fall. Bush is pushing for drilling for our own oil in Alaska. Bush is pushing for school choice vouchers and faith-based charity.

Bush just got a privatization option for all of Medicare included in his prescription drugs plan. Likewise, Bush is pushing to privatize all of Social Security.

And Bush hasn't even been in office for 3 years yet. History books will view him very favorably, mark my words.

Yes, you're right.

I think it's fine to disagree with Bush, because, for one thing, this keeps him (Bush) on his toes. Rush has sometimes gone overboard, but not that often.

I'm not in favor of Bush's big government plans, either, but I will say that he's left the Dems with no issue.

I used to like Neal Boortz' comments, too, except that he's a libertarian who has been so obsessed by his drug legalization campaign lately that his show has become boring. But I guess this is good: it shows that Bush has restored stability and normalcy to this country after the worst attack on civilians in its history.

What I'd like to know is what was so bad about Nixon's strategy in '72 anyway????

Nothing, he kicked McGovern's rear end, but that isn't what Nixon will be known for. He will always be known for Watergate and to the casual non-political listener of Rush it could be construed that the casual non-political listener says to themselves, Nixon-Bush connection, "Watergate-Bush is also a liar, yada, yada, yada.."

That's why I think the Rush's Bush-Nixon connection is not only factually wrong, but also disingenuous.

If Rush still has his ESPN gig in the fall of 2004,expect him to really gin up his hammering of GW and moderate any criticism of the Democrats, to illustrate his neutrality.His football commentary will trump any desire to help President Bush.

Pull your head out and smell the coffee. I bet you $100.00 that you are wrong. I agree with Rush, and like him I will not only vote for Bush but I will also work the phones at the local RNC headquarters to make it happen.

See, unlike the Democrats Rush does not drink the kool-aid just to satisfy the party. We must keep Bush'e feet to the fire lest he forgets who brought him to the prom.

"JMO, but Rush seems to have a burr up his rear end against Bush"

I stopped listening to Rush back in '01, all he did was bitch, & whine, & pi$$ and moan about GW not being conservative enough.

During the Clinton ( spit ) years, Rush made me think he was on our side. I since found out that during the
'92 race he had come out for Buchcanan, thus giving legitimancy to the disaffected wing of the right, that went to Perots( cursed be him and all who voted for him! )cause.

I think that he did that to gain a new audience, saying I'll be here for you during these dark days... now that GW is the President, IMO, it's just that he has to be a contrarian, to gain new listeners.

So, I consider Limbaugh just a man out for himself, & if bashing Bush gains him listeners, then bash bush he will.

I think you are misreading what Rush is saying. Bush has one major objective and it is win the war on terrorism. ANd to do that he has to create a broad coalition and reach out for the "base plus" which entails adopting or stealing liberal left issues from the democrats just as Nixon did while attempting to win the Viet Nam war and reach out to China. I don't think Rush is being critical- but admiring the overall stratergy. At least that is how I read the piece.

Rush has casual, non-political listeners? Rush never fails to make his preferences known during an election...he backed Dole. I doubt strongly that Rush will sit on the fence in Bush v. Dean, or Bush v. Liebermann, or certainly Bush v. Clinton. Those casual, non-political listeners will know exactly where he stands on the election, when they're paying attention.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's trying to harm Bush electorally. He may be trying to prod him policy-wise, but I can't imagine his problems with Bush running that deep.

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.