or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Rove's Dying Dream |
Choux |
11/03/05 |
Karl Rove's Dying Dream
So much for the permanent Republican majority.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2005, at 5:18 PM ET
"Karl Rove's dream is dying. This is happening for reasons that have nothing to do with Valerie Plame.
Rove's dream was to reshape American politics by creating a durable Republican majority. In the old days, Rove told anyone who would listen that his role model in this project was the legendary political boss Mark Hanna.
The key to McKinley's political success was the alliance Hanna forged between industrialists like himself, who provided the cash, and workers, who provided the votes. In Rove's alliance, the rich provide the cash, and religious conservatives provide the votes. Refuting the conventional wisdom that successful presidential candidates must lay claim to the political center, Bush has governed from the right and won re-election in 2004 with a "base-in," rather than a "center-out," strategy.
When Bush was re-elected, everyone hailed Rove's strategy as a masterstroke. But would Rove's protégé have eked out victories in 2000 and 2004 absent special circumstances, lame opponents, and good luck? Less than a year into Bush's second term, the president's approval rating is down around 40 percent. Many things have gone wrong for Bush, but the underlying problem is his relationship to the constituency that elected him. Bush's debt to his big donors and to religious conservatives has boxed him in and pitted him against the national consensus on various issues. His extremism is undermining Rove's realignment.
The problem has become clear with Bush's difficulties in filling Sandra Day O'Connor's slot on the Supreme Court. The Harriet Miers nomination was an attempt to satisfy both the militant conservative base and the eternally moderate American electorate. With the Alito nomination, Bush has acknowledged that splitting this difference is impossible. Faced with a choice, he has chosen, once again, to dance with the ones who brought him. But by appointing a superconservative, Bush risks propelling his increasingly beleaguered administration even further toward the right-hand margin—a place where his party cannot win future national elections.
Bush aims to be the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. But he has never understood the genius of Reagan's method, which was to placate the religious right without giving in where it mattered. Reagan could proclaim his undying support for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion without doing anything to endanger Roe v. Wade. (He was the one who nominated O'Connor, remember?) In the same way, Bill Clinton managed to keep liberal interest groups onboard without advancing their politically untenable wish list. But whether because he is less adroit or because he truly believes, Bush seems able to appease his base only by surrendering to its wishes. He has caved to conservatives on Terri Schiavo, on stem-cell research, on Social Security privatization, and on "intelligent design." Now, most important, he is caving by at least creating the appearance that he is trying to get enough votes on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe.
Bush's failure at base-pacification is not entirely his fault. The evangelicals, who were pragmatically willing to settle for half a loaf during the Reagan and Bush 41 years, now feel empowered, emboldened, and owed. James Dobson and Pat Robertson don't understand that they would do their cause the most good by keeping their mouths shut and not scaring everyone witless. Conservatives of all kinds are in a militant mood heightened by their success in muscling Bush on Miers. They do not realize how their militancy alienates not just the left, but the swingers in the center whom Republicans need to win.
Rove is actually the second Republican realigner to stumble in this way in recent years. After the 1994 election, Newt Gingrich had his own visions of political sugarplums. Gingrich's unsuccessful revolution was more libertarian and less moralistic. He thought the new Republican majority would coalesce around shrinking government (a theme Bush has soft-pedaled, preferring to undermine government through neglect and incompetence). Gingrich was also, frankly, a little nuts. But he failed because he made the same basic mistake that Rove did. Gingrich thought he'd won a mandate for radical change and enshrined a new governing majority. He forgot about the country's nonideological majority, which likes Medicare, Social Security, national parks, and student loans. Republicans have retained control of Congress since Gingrich's downfall, but only by reversing his austerity program and spending like a bunch of drunks.
Like McKinley, Bush has a potential successor who would like to change his party's direction. John McCain spouts reform and idolizes Teddy Roosevelt. And oh yes—he and Karl Rove loathe each other."
Question:: Any comments about this inciteful article from Slate Magazine??? |
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/04/05 10:34 am:
Excon,
>>>Let's see, a 39% (and headed down) approval rating suggests that you, actually, don't know what the hell you are talking about.<<<
Wrong again...
The approval raitings are about approval of BUSH, not approval of specific policies.
Recent polls show that most people favor a strict Constitutionalist for the Supreme Court.
Recent polls show that the majority of Americans are against abortion.
Recent polls show that Americans are tired of judicial activism.
Recent polls show that most Americans are in favor of a strong national security policy and favor fighting terrorism.
An article in today's NY Post makes it clear that most Americans are afraid of making security more lax at airports.
Recent polls show that most Americans do not favor eliminating all religious symbols from publuc places or government buildings.
Recent polls show that most Americans are in favor of leaving "under G-d" in the Constitution.
The bottom line is that despite the fact that people don't like Bush right now, most people generally agree with his policies.
Every President in history who has accomplished ANYTHING contravercial during his presidency had low approval raitings. Remember Reagan's approval raitings around 1987? Lower than a hog's snout in a garbage dump. And that was just 3 years after the largest landslide victory in American history. But look at the effect Reagan had.
Contrast that with Clinton, who had some of the highest approval ratings of any president in history... but accomplished nothing.
The presidency isn't a popularity contest. It's a tough job, and the more effective you are, the more enemies you make. Bush's approval raitings are meaningless to me. It is what he is accomplishing that counts. And putting in 2 conservative SC judges, bringing in majorities in both the Senate and the House, and continuing to push his agenda make him effective. And in politics, effective means contravercial.
Furthermore, the poll numbers themselves are questionable. Rasmussen has Bush at 43%. Keep in mind that Bush had the same 43% approval rating on August 17 2004, before winning the election with 52% of the vote. Bush's ratings during 2004 varied from 57% at its highest to 43% at its lowest. In 2005, his highest rating was 54%. So what do we learn from this?
Absolutely nothing. The polls of Bush's popularity tell us absolutely nothing about his electability or his ability to do his job or his ability to help other Republicans get elected.
Here's a little tidbit, though: According to Rassmusen, 65% of Americans favor Sam Alito Jr. for SC Justice. Only 40% of Americans have a favorable view of the Supreme Court as it is currently constructed.
They may not approve of Bush, but they sure as hell agree with him.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 11/04/05 12:55 pm:
a correction : McKinley won re:election and was then shot .
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 11/04/05 12:58 pm:
Choux
the mistake Weisberg makes is the mistake Kerry made ;assuming that there is a swing vote to grab. He also severely over-estimates the role of the evangelicals .If they held the power then it would still be Miers as the nominee. The fact is that the intellectual conservatives led the revolt against Miers . The Reagan revolution swung the nation permanently to the right . The Gingrich revolution slowly grabbed both houses of Congress .All Rove did really was to know how to read the tea leaves .He is no visionary . My own personal view is that the President does not really need him anymore and if there were a way to ease him out without appearing weak I really think Bush would give him the heave-ho . I agree with Trent Lott when he questions Rove's value as a policy man. Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 11/04/05 1:25 pm:
We agree to disagree totally.
:)
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 11/07/05 1:06 pm:
>>Bush's debt to his big donors and to religious conservatives has boxed him in and pitted him against the national consensus on various issues. His extremism is undermining Rove's realignment.<<
What extremism? It was a simple question.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
