The Bush Factor

Dana Goldstein remarks after watching the Republicans debate that they "are terrified of the words 'George W. Bush.' A smart Democrat would force her or his Republican opponent to face up, as often as possible, to the legacy of his party's leader."

Quite so. Which is one reason why it's probably a good thing for the Republicans that their race is being shaken up a bit by somewhat unorthodox candidates. It's also why the Democratic nominee is going to have to be prepared to mount an ideological critique of Bush and Bushism rather than a purely personal one. One will want to argue "Bush was President, all this terrible stuff happened that made him incredibly unpopular, that stuff followed from his ideology, Republican X shares the relevant aspects of that ideology, therefore if you hate Bush, don't vote for Republican X."

In particular, I think Democrats need to worry about a possible Republican blurring strategy on Iraq especially if the Democratic nominee voted for the war. On a political level, "incompetence dodge" arguments suggest that what's needed isn't a different approach to foreign policy but a president with better "strong leader" attributes, which is a place where Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both rate pretty well. Bush's onpopularity is bound to be a drag on the GOP one way or the other, but you can see in the early head-to-head polling that dislike of the incumbent doesn't automatically transfer to the rest of his party.

Comments

"In particular, I think Democrats need to worry about a possible Republican blurring strategy on Iraq especially if the Democratic nominee voted for the war."

You'd think they'd have learned something from 2004, wouldn't you?

Posted by BobN | November 29, 2007 4:19 PM

but you can see in the early head-to-head polling that dislike of the incumbent doesn't automatically transfer to the rest of his party.

Sure it does, you're overanalyzing. If not for the Bushism Hillary would've been 20 points lower in the polls against Giuliani. Back in 2000 - that's before the "America's mayor" thing - they were going neck to neck in NY, and now she beats him by 15 points there.

Posted by abb1 | November 29, 2007 4:24 PM

"an ideological critique instead of a personal one"? You're kidding, right? Personal critiques of George Bush are the only identifiable Democrat ideology.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 29, 2007 4:38 PM

Talking points for the Dems:

If you want more war, vote Republican.
If you want better health insurance, vote Democrat.

Geroge Bush and his Republicans increased your personal share of the national debt by about $12,000. If you're a family of 4, that's $48,000. Meanwhile, they gave Paris Hilton about $480,000 in tax cuts. Want more of the same?

If you're worried about another 9/11, remember: Saddam Hussein is dead. Does that make you feel safer?

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | November 29, 2007 4:48 PM

ah yes, the dread "onpopularity"...

(couldn't resist)

Posted by right | November 29, 2007 4:52 PM

If Romney is the nominee, I would certainly remind voters that Mitt's big claim is his management skills, and that he would in effect be an MBA President. Then ask how well the current MBA president is doing.

Posted by Gene | November 29, 2007 5:21 PM

therefore if you hate Bush, don't vote for Republican X.

I would swap the phrase "hate Bush" with "dislike what Bush had done to the counrty."

Posted by bliekker | November 29, 2007 5:49 PM

BOTH Giuliani and McCain gave ringing endorsements of George W. Bush in 2004 at the Republican National Convention. Did they not mean what they say?

Posted by joejoejoe | November 29, 2007 7:26 PM

Back in 2000 - that's before the "America's mayor" thing - they were going neck to neck in NY, and now she beats him by 15 points there.

You're discounting the difference in Hillary herself. Back in 2000 she was a carpetbagger who had never held elective office. Now she's spent 7 years as a very effective Senator for New York. She's won a lot of people over in her own right.

Also, Giuliani's 9/11 thing may have gained him huge amounts of popularity around the country, but it's a mixed bag in New York. All the bad stuff you know from the blogs about his 9/11 record, the radios that didn't work, the sick rescue workers, all that stuff is well-known in New York but not so much elsewhere, at least not yet. The last time Giuliani showed up at a Yankees game the crowd booed him, and it wasn't because of George Bush.

Posted by Steve | November 29, 2007 7:33 PM

Agree. The Dems need to hang Bush (and Cheney too!) around whoever runs on the GOP side. To the extent that the GOP candidate repudiates Bush he will outrage the lunatic Bush-worshipping base. To the extent he pleases the base by affirming Bush's policies he will lose everyone else. The GOP would be wise to lose this one and hope that American attention spans prove as short as they usually do so they can make a clean start in 2012 0r 2016.

Posted by Jonf | November 29, 2007 9:48 PM

[T]he Democratic nominee is going to have to be prepared to mount an ideological critique of Bush and Bushism rather than a purely personal one....

In particular, I think Democrats need to worry about a possible Republican blurring strategy on Iraq especially if the Democratic nominee voted for the war.

I think the first statement is on target, but that the second one is a pretty clear case of the pundit's fallacy. To be sure, foreign policy will be important in '08. But it is probably the least likely electoral arena in which ideology will be decisive.

Despite Bush's hypertrophied version of these qualities, median voters will probably still be looking primarily for signs of decisiveness and firmness from their prospective "commander-in-chief"--albeit decisiveness and firmness leavened, this time, by enough competence and prudence not to get us embroiled in undertakings where we wind up standing virtually alone against overwhelming odds of failure.

Such voters will be looking for a president who will be able to get us out of Iraq without too many adverse consequences: Someone who will pull off a successful retreat, without rubbing the fact of retreat in their faces. After all, until their patience ran out sometime during the last four and a half years, median voters were also supporters of the war,

Where ideology will very likely matter, I think, is in domestic policy. For a long time now, a reaction has been building against the movement conservative conviction that government should remain essentially indifferent to mass economic distress and anxiety. That reaction looks like it is about to crest, propelling a Democrat into office.

It was foolish of Democrats to try to change the subject from national security to domestic issues in, say, 2002. It would be equally foolish to ignore the mounting salience of domestic issues going into 2008.

To be sure, the Iraq War, and the continuing turmoil in the region, is and will remain an important factor in contemporary politics. But, on these matters, most of the country is not with the roughly 1/3 of the electorate that is made up of strongly committed Democrats.

Moderate and independent voters (those with relatively fluid party identification, a large number of whom have swung back into the Democratic column in recent years) have indeed soured on the Iraq war. But this is not because they have become convinced that the U.S. needs a different foreign policy strategy. They don't, by and large, think in ideological-strategic terms about foreign policy.

These voters have soured on the war for simple reason that it didn't go well, and that it no longer seems worth the effort. Calling this reaction to events an "incompetence dodge" won't change the fact that it far better describes the sentiments of the decisive third (or so) of the electorate than any burning desire for ideologically-inspired refashioning of the nation's foreign policy strategy.

Posted by Amileoj | November 30, 2007 2:28 AM

You're discounting the difference in Hillary herself. Back in 2000 she was a carpetbagger who had never held elective office. Now she's spent 7 years as a very effective Senator for New York. She's won a lot of people over in her own right.

How is she a very effective Senator? I understand most of her Senate votes are, in fact, the main source of her weakness.

Posted by abb1 | November 30, 2007 3:18 AM

Hil's a very effective Senator because her constituents, in increasingly large numbers, think so. Rudy chickened out in the Senate race for good reason, most of which had nothing to do with his personal life. Those reasons have only gotten stronger. Rudy couldn't carry New York against her to save his life.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 30, 2007 6:56 AM

On a political level, "incompetence dodge" arguments suggest that what's needed isn't a different approach to foreign policy but a president with better "strong leader" attributes, which is a place where Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both rate pretty well.

I think this is half baked. A presidential candidate's self-professed approach to foreign policy is a terrible indicator of how he/she will act in office. George W. Bush ran in 2000 as a realist with palpable disdain for nation-building.

In reality, a president's foreign policy is dictated more by events and personal traits than the ideas he subscribed to in order to get elected. That's why the people look so carefully at intractable dispositional traits (the "strong leader" stuff).

Rudy Giuliani should not be put in charge of our Iran policy because . . .

A. He overestimates the capabilities of the U.S. military and misconstrues the significance of the U.S. conflict with Islamic fundamentalists.

B. He's a raving lunatic with a bad temper.

Which is more persuasive?

Posted by southpaw | November 30, 2007 7:26 AM

This is why national match-up polls of this Democrat and that Republican don't worry me that much right now. The Republicans are studiously avoiding mentioning Bush, but, since the Republicans who actually seem capable of winning the primary all pretty much agree with Bush's policies, all a Dem will have to do is point out that, if you really wish you could have four more years of Bush, you only have to vote for Giuliani or Romney, etc.

Posted by nitpicker | November 30, 2007 9:15 AM

It's also why the Democratic nominee is going to have to be prepared to mount an ideological critique of Bush and Bushism rather than a purely personal one. One will want to argue "Bush was President, all this terrible stuff happened that made him incredibly unpopular, that stuff followed from his ideology, Republican X shares the relevant aspects of that ideology, therefore if you hate Bush, don't vote for Republican X."

Matt, this is right on the money. I’d only add that the ideological critique should be not only against Bush & Bushism, but the GOP in general, given its current —ahem— character. At starting with the 1980 election, the GOP was taken over by the Grover Norquist types, with their invidious distinction between the people & their government; supply-side economists, who wrapped their near-religious faith in free markets in pseudo-scientific posturing to obscure their fundamental hostility to empiricism; antiabortion activists; racists; and various jingoistic militarists. The GOP had long been, of course, the staunchest of the two major parties in support of corporate capitalism. All of these groups have in common a belief that faith and blind obedience to authority are preferable to reason and intellectual exploration. They are fundamentally hostile to science, historical evidence, reasoned discourse, and, as we’ve seen repeatedly over the past 7 years, democracy. Under Bush & Co., every gesture, every utterance has been reduced to a mechanism for acquiring and maintaining power.

Revealing the basic dishonesty of Republican statements and actions is a necessary opening gambit; tying that dishonesty (and incompetence) to the half-baked underlying ideas is essential. Thus can the stakes involved in putting such a party into a position of national leadership (again) be made crystal clear. The whole lot of them should be forced to wear Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, global warming, [add your choice of nightmare here], like a giant, indelible scarlet letter.

Posted by dolphy | November 30, 2007 1:32 PM