October 24, 2003
LET THE WORLD COME TO YOU:
The Clouds May Be Clearing for Bush and GOP: Progress in Iraq and the U.S. economy could leave the president sitting pretty for 2004. (Walter Russell Mead, October 19, 2003, LA Times)
Like the Chicago Cubs, though, the Democrats may have peaked too soon. Bush's poll numbers have stabilized. Arnold Schwarzenegger's victory in the California gubernatorial recall election has sent a thrill through the Republican Party. In Iraq, the violence continues, but the lights are now on, kids are returning to school, Turkey has agreed to send troops to the most dangerous part of the country (Sunni Iraq) — and the Bush administration won unanimous support from the U.N. Security Council for its plan for Iraq.
This doesn't mean Bush's problems in Iraq are over. The drumbeat of death will go on for some time. Discontent in the ranks and among reservists (and their families) will continue to rise. Questions about weapons of mass destruction will not go away — and, especially if Saddam Hussein is not captured or killed, the politics of Iraq will remain uncertain and potentially full of nasty surprises.
The new harmony at the U.N. Security Council is only skin-deep. Allied money and troops aren't flowing into Iraq yet — and may never. Old Europe and its friends aren't ready to kiss and make up with the Bush administration. The French, Germans and Russians still steam over the U.S.-led invasion. They remain worried that a new Iraqi government, with U.S. backing, may try to repudiate some of the debt Hussein contracted in cozy deals made with French, Russian and German companies. They want the U.S. to pay the highest possible price — in money and even in blood — for the invasion to lessen the chance that the Bush administration or its successors will ever act without their approval. "You broke it; you fix it," is Old Europe's basic attitude on Iraq — and it will never willingly do any favors for an administration it fears and despises.
Even so, time is on Bush's side. The distance between the U.S. and the rest of the world over Iraq will narrow. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Old Europe want Washington to draw up timetables and set dates for elections and a handover of power to a new Iraqi government. Although the U.S. believes that schedules are unhelpful, as time passes, the tasks will get easier. The reality is, the United States wants to do exactly what the rest of the world would like it to do in Iraq — hand control back to a freely elected, stable Iraqi government at the earliest possible moment.
Iraq is making progress toward forming a new government, and that government will be able to assume more and more security responsibilities. By next spring, the new Iraqi police and army will be deploying, enabling the administration to start pulling out U.S. troops well before the November elections.
The President's most admirable quality--very much a surprise given his well-deserved reputation as a hothead--is his political patience. He's had innumerable opportunities to panic and start flailing around in the past four years--from John McCain's victory in NH, to Florida 2000, to Jim Jeffords defection, to 9/11, to the economic slowdown, etc.--but he's not only stayed his course but followed the overall strategy he and Karl Rove charted before they ever began running for the presidency. One of their key insights was the understanding that the presidency itself is a form of political capital, which can all too easily be used up in a profligate manner, see particularly Bill Clinton. They've been very careful, therefore, to reserve the President's personal appearances and speeches for moments that really matter, rather than trotting him out everytime someone has a complaint.
This has been on display most recently in the almost serene indifference he's displayed to his dip in the polls and to dismay over the course of the peace in Iraq. In fact, there was a journalist on NPR yesterday talking about how upset the networks are that this is the second consecutive weekend that the administration hasn't made anyone available for the Sunday talk shows. Mind you, this is while every poundit and politico East of the Pecos is hysterically jabbering about how the administration hasn't done good enough sales job on the war. Either things will quiet down in Iraq and the economy will continue to improve or they won't, regardless of anything anyone says. The President's acting as if he believes they will. We expect he's right, but then we don't have to hold our ground amidst hailstorms of criticism.
Posted by Orrin Judd at October 24, 2003 6:40 AMIf Iraq does break into two or more countries, as the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia did, (for the same reasons as Iraq), who will France, Germany, and Russia dun for the debt ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 24, 2003 8:53 AMBush's "passive" nature of governing dates back to his willingness not to slam Democrats and take what he could get on school finance reform during the 1997 Texas Legislative session. Lashing out would have been theraputic, but by not doing so he denied Democrats anytihng to really galvonize the swing voters against in the 1998 general election, and he ended up winning re-election by 49 percent and brining Republicans into all the lower statewide offices.
Bush's seeming passive nature on a number of domestic issues annoys a lot of Republicans at times, and there are some things I wish he and his staff would take a stronger stand against. But the same principal applies here as in 1997-98 in Texas -- so long as the administration continues to be seen as competent in the eyes of the American public, the failure to lash out denies the Democrats any way to really stir up the swing voters, except through their own sensationalist claims.
The media is the same way -- they wish Bush or someone in the administration was more like Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay, and would give them some verbal red meat to toss out over the airwaves. But unless there's a breakdown in plan, it's not happening, and Bush's opponents are left with trying to make a general who believes in good and evil as a surrogate for an out-of-control administration.
Posted by: John at October 24, 2003 9:26 AMI note that "You broke it, you fix it" attitude from Old Europe. Strangley enough, they've pissed me off about a lot, but not that. It's totally natural, and human. Shortsighted, but understandable.
As long as they get that we can take out a pencil, a little sheet of paper, write down the words, "you broke it, you fix it", and tuck it inot our pockets for future use. It will likely come in handy.
Worth noting we did NOT say that in either 1917, or 1945.
"They have learned nothing, they remeber nothing."
Posted by: Andrew X at October 24, 2003 10:14 AMI don't want my verbal red meat, I want my judges.
Posted by: Sandy P. at October 24, 2003 12:28 PMI'd have taken a switch to Daschle a long time ago. He's lucky I'm not the one running things. Although I'd probably be up on war crimes charges for the things I'd do in Saudi Arabia and "Palestine." I guess everybody's lucky I'm not running things, eh?
Posted by: NKR at October 24, 2003 2:28 PMMy guess is that Iraq will be as relevant to American politics in November, 2004 as Afghanistan is today - in other words, not relevant at all. That's why a Dean candidacy really would resemble McGovern's in 1972. The Deanster would be running hell for leather on an issue that most Americans had ceased to care about, just as McGovern did with Vietnam. At least Dean will check out his Veep selection pretty carefully.
The election will most likely be decided on those boring old pocketbook issues. So the really good news for Bush is the improving economy. If Bush can score approval ratings in the mid-50s when the public is still wary on the economy, he should have no trouble when even media people have to recognize economic improvement next year.
Posted by: Casey Abell at October 24, 2003 3:42 PMPlease stop jinxing our poor boys in Iraq.
Everytime bloggers triumphantly post something saying "things are getting better in Iraq," exactly three American soldiers get killed before the pixels are dry.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at October 24, 2003 6:58 PMMr. Judd;
I essayed earlier on that President Bush's silence on the Plame affair wasn't a coverup but simply the way Bush reacted to non-essential problems. And look, it's evaporated now, hasn't it, without Bush spending much political capital. It doesn't always work but it's clearly the way to bet.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 24, 2003 7:33 PMAOG - well said. When the Democrats lead with their spittle, it is a safe bet that Kobe Bryant will be the lead on the news the following week. Outrage didn't work against Clinton in 1996, and it will go even worse for the Dems. next year.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 24, 2003 10:15 PMSteven Den Beste is of the opinion that Bush's greatest strength is that he is "inhumanly patient."
Hey, Steve Sailer shows up! Much as Mr. Sailer is hoping for a quagmire in Iraq, he will be bitterly disappointed. By November, 2004 most American soldiers will be gone from Iraq and American casualties, very low already (sorry, Steve!), will be practically nonexistent.
So Dean will be campaigning on a non-issue while Bush hammers him on things that actually matter to the voters, like taxes and the economy. The big-taxing Mr. Dean will never know what hit him.
Posted by: Casey Abell at October 25, 2003 1:29 PMI've been rethinking my flippant language in the above post. I apologize to Mr. Sailer for implying that he is somehow happy that Americans are getting killed in Iraq. While he has been a consistent opponent of the war in Irag, Mr. Sailer is genuinely saddened (as I am) over American casualties in the war.
This doesn't change the political point, though. The casualties are already very low and will be virtually nonexistent by November, 2004. The election will be fought over those boring old pocketbook issues. With an unemployment rate in the mid-fives (at most) and falling, an inflation rate that's barely visible, and tax cuts fattening most Americans' paychecks, Bush will almost certainly cruise to a big win.
Dean has made it easier by promising major tax hikes for middle-class Americans by repealing all of Bush's tax cuts. Mondale tried this gambit with, er, limited success in 1984. Will Dean lose as badly as Vice-President Misery Index? I'm starting to think it's possible.
Posted by: Casey Abell at October 25, 2003 2:11 PMThanks, Orrin, for your excellent comments, and I enjoyed the OP-ED piece a lot.
Posted by: Brent at October 26, 2003 4:27 AM