New Phase, New Test For Bush
By David S. Broder from The Washington Post:
In trying to gauge where things stand in our government after the political upheaval that has taken place, it helps to think back through the events that have shaped the Bush presidency. This is really the beginning of the fourth phase of his tenure.
Bush I was defined by the equivocal election of 2000, the race between George Bush and Al Gore that lasted an extra 36 days until the Supreme Court finally put a stop to the Florida vote-counting.
Bush I was as spotty as the election that created it. The president enjoyed some early successes in forming his administration, pushing through his tax cuts and launching the No Child Left Behind education reform. But in the summer of 2001, some people inside the White House -- and many outside -- were realizing that the new president lacked a clear sense of direction and was beginning to lose traction.
That changed dramatically -- and Bush II began -- on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, with the savage attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bush said he realized at that moment that he had been summoned to answer the challenge of terrorism -- and that defeating it was his overriding purpose as president.
For a time, the country felt the same way, and we experienced a sense of national unity and purpose not seen since World War II.
Bush III began not with an external event but with what historians are likely to regard as the most fateful decision of his presidency, the decision to send American forces into Iraq. That war has dominated American policymaking and politics since. And as time has gone on, more and more Americans have come to believe that Bush's decision was a mistake.
Bush IV, I would argue, began just this month, when voters stripped the president and his party of control of the House and Senate and installed Democratic majorities in the Capitol.
I acknowledge that it sounds exaggerated to assert that a midterm election has the same weight on the historical scales as a presidential election, or an attack on the homeland, or a war. But I would argue that it belongs there.
The consequences of this power shift clearly are going to be large. Already, Donald Rumsfeld, who, with Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, formed the core of Bush's war cabinet, has been forced out of office. Come January, with the report of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in hand, the new Congress will begin putting pressure on Bush to change policy on the war.
At home, the fundamental governing strategy of the Bush administration will also have to change. The president has relied on automatic party-line majorities in the House to induce enough Senate Democrats to join their Republican colleagues and send bills to the White House for signature.
Now, if Bush wants to achieve any legislative successes, he will have to negotiate deals with the Democrats and meet at least some of their demands. The next fateful decision he has to make -- after Iraq -- is whether to become that kind of bargainer or accept a barren record in his final two years.
The weakness in the president's position revealed by the midterm election extends beyond Capitol Hill to the electorate itself. The "firewalls" that Republicans thought they had built to protect their congressional majorities did not hold. Republicans had the advantage in money and in campaign organization, and they had all those districts that had been gerrymandered to "guarantee" Republican wins. But in Arizona, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and many other states, it did not spare them from multiple defeats.
Exit polls on Nov. 7 showed that "the base" developed serious splinters. One in five self-described conservatives said they voted for the Democratic congressional candidate.
Meanwhile, in the center of the voting population, where elections are decided, Democrats led by 18 points among independents and by 22 points among moderates.
None of these shifts is necessarily permanent, but each one of them is significant. And, taken together, they explain why this midterm election ranks right up there with the 2000 presidential race, the Sept. 11 attacks and the decision to go to war in Iraq as signal events defining the four phases of the Bush presidency.
How it will all play out we do not know, but the chances of a happy ending don't look great.
In trying to gauge where things stand in our government after the political upheaval that has taken place, it helps to think back through the events that have shaped the Bush presidency. This is really the beginning of the fourth phase of his tenure.
Bush I was defined by the equivocal election of 2000, the race between George Bush and Al Gore that lasted an extra 36 days until the Supreme Court finally put a stop to the Florida vote-counting.
Bush I was as spotty as the election that created it. The president enjoyed some early successes in forming his administration, pushing through his tax cuts and launching the No Child Left Behind education reform. But in the summer of 2001, some people inside the White House -- and many outside -- were realizing that the new president lacked a clear sense of direction and was beginning to lose traction.
That changed dramatically -- and Bush II began -- on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, with the savage attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bush said he realized at that moment that he had been summoned to answer the challenge of terrorism -- and that defeating it was his overriding purpose as president.
For a time, the country felt the same way, and we experienced a sense of national unity and purpose not seen since World War II.
Bush III began not with an external event but with what historians are likely to regard as the most fateful decision of his presidency, the decision to send American forces into Iraq. That war has dominated American policymaking and politics since. And as time has gone on, more and more Americans have come to believe that Bush's decision was a mistake.
Bush IV, I would argue, began just this month, when voters stripped the president and his party of control of the House and Senate and installed Democratic majorities in the Capitol.
I acknowledge that it sounds exaggerated to assert that a midterm election has the same weight on the historical scales as a presidential election, or an attack on the homeland, or a war. But I would argue that it belongs there.
The consequences of this power shift clearly are going to be large. Already, Donald Rumsfeld, who, with Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, formed the core of Bush's war cabinet, has been forced out of office. Come January, with the report of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in hand, the new Congress will begin putting pressure on Bush to change policy on the war.
At home, the fundamental governing strategy of the Bush administration will also have to change. The president has relied on automatic party-line majorities in the House to induce enough Senate Democrats to join their Republican colleagues and send bills to the White House for signature.
Now, if Bush wants to achieve any legislative successes, he will have to negotiate deals with the Democrats and meet at least some of their demands. The next fateful decision he has to make -- after Iraq -- is whether to become that kind of bargainer or accept a barren record in his final two years.
The weakness in the president's position revealed by the midterm election extends beyond Capitol Hill to the electorate itself. The "firewalls" that Republicans thought they had built to protect their congressional majorities did not hold. Republicans had the advantage in money and in campaign organization, and they had all those districts that had been gerrymandered to "guarantee" Republican wins. But in Arizona, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and many other states, it did not spare them from multiple defeats.
Exit polls on Nov. 7 showed that "the base" developed serious splinters. One in five self-described conservatives said they voted for the Democratic congressional candidate.
Meanwhile, in the center of the voting population, where elections are decided, Democrats led by 18 points among independents and by 22 points among moderates.
None of these shifts is necessarily permanent, but each one of them is significant. And, taken together, they explain why this midterm election ranks right up there with the 2000 presidential race, the Sept. 11 attacks and the decision to go to war in Iraq as signal events defining the four phases of the Bush presidency.
How it will all play out we do not know, but the chances of a happy ending don't look great.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 3:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home