Features > December 28, 2005

The Republican Crack-Up

Bush’s bad year has created a political vacuum. Who will fill it?

By David Moberg

Shortly after his reelection, George Bush bragged that he had bags full of political capital for his second term. But Bush both miscounted the political coins in his pocket and blew his wad on some bad gambles, such as the war in Iraq and Social Security privatization. Then he lost more with the bad luck, largely of his own making, of a botched response to Hurricane Katrina.

By late November [FC], he was less popular than Clinton, Reagan or Eisenhower was at any point in their second terms, with his approval ratings down in the mid-30 percents. On the two leading issues for voters—the war in Iraq and the economy—his ratings were even worse.

And despite hard-core loyalty from the Republican base, there are signs of disaffection from both moderates and the party’s far right, including anti-government budget-cutters and anti-immigrant militants. Cracks have even emerged in the previously impregnable Republican Congressional political machine over both scandals and strategy. “The hopeful sign is that on all kinds of fronts where Republicans hoped to be united and victorious, they’re now defensive and disunited,” says Roger Hickey, co-director of the progressive advocacy group Campaign for America’s Future (CAF).

Crucial missteps

Bush’s annus horribilus was partly the result of fundamentally flawed policies playing themselves out. It also reflected the breakdown of a duplicitous strategy to push through policies that a majority of Americans never supported and often misunderstood, as political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue in their recent book, Off Center. But it also resulted from the grassroots pressure of progressives and—when they finally sensed Bush’s weakness—some better-late-than-never political discipline from Democrats.

There were two turning points. First, his disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina reinforced a view of Bush as out of touch with ordinary people and undermined his claim to elementary competence. With American poverty and governmental inadequacy so flagrantly on display, Republicans had to indefinitely postpone the vote on one of their favorite causes—permanent repeal of the estate tax.

Then, the 2,000th death of American soldiers in Iraq crystallized Americans’ frustration with a war that a growing majority thinks should not have been fought—and that Bush misled them into supporting. Bush is losing support on the war not only from the left and center—most notably, in the resounding call for withdrawal from traditionally hawkish Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.)—but also from his right. Two-thirds of self-described conservative Republicans told Washington Post pollsters they had doubts about the war.

Equally important to Bush’s collapse was the defeat in the public arena—without a vote even being taken—of his primary domestic initiative: privatization of Social Security. The more Bush talked about it, the less support it got. But that never would have happened without a sustained and disciplined grassroots campaign led by Americans United to Protect Social Security, consisting of unions, especially AFSCME (public employees), CAF and USAction (a coalition of statewide citizen groups). In Bush’s first week on the hustings for privatization, they directly challenged him in Fargo, Billings, Omaha, Little Rock and Tampa, all cities in red states where he had hoped to pressure Democratic legislators to back his plan. “These are not places of progressive strength,” says USAction director Jeff Blum, “but they became places where people on our side were looking to fight back. We gave them a message.”

With the floodgates open, more discontent poured out. Democrats won governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia, making significant gains in exurbs where Republicans thought they ruled. Older Americans on Medicare were infuriated with the complex Medicare prescription plan, a giveaway to the drug and insurance industries that Republicans hoped would win them seniors’ votes. And the blow-up over Harriet Miers’ Supreme Court nomination underscored the Bush administration’s weakness for incompetent cronies. The right won the Republicans’ internal fight over Miers with the subsequent nomination of Samuel Alito, but with Bush weakened and Alito’s deeply conservative views becoming public, Democratic senators may be emboldened to make a fight over his nomination.

Blatant corruption

The growing scandals from the White House to Congress are most significant as indicators of how lawlessly the right wing has fought for power. The outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame was at its heart an attempt to hide the false rationales proffered for invading Iraq. The pending trial of (now former) house majority leader Tom DeLay for money-laundering grew out of his strategy to use corporate money in a scheme to redistrict the state and eliminate five Democratic congressmen—even though Bush Justice Department experts unanimously concluded that the plan violated the Voting Rights Act.

Bad as they are, the scandals involving superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, or Rep. Duke Cunningham—who pleaded guilty and resigned from Congress—are more conventional, if grandly greedy, abuses of influence. The widespread involvement of industry lobbyists in writing Republican legislation, like the energy or bankruptcy bills, is far more troublesome.

Politically, the scandals may make some seemingly secure races more competitive. For example, shortly after Thanksgiving, Ohio Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) was confronted by four ads placed by CAF in the Columbus Dispatch, linking him to Abramoff, DeLay and others in the casino money-for-influence scandal. Such reminders may make Ney’s re-election more difficult.

Republicans recognize that vulnerability: Party leaders in the House allowed Ney to be one of 14 Republicans to vote in November against the House Republican budget cuts in Medicaid, student loans and child support enforcement in their budget reconciliation bill. But his Cleveland-area colleague, Steve LaTourette, who had told lobbyists that he would vote against the “lousy” legislation, was pressured into helping to pass the bill by two votes. His constituents were snowed in that day, he explained, so they wouldn’t notice his vote.

Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, under investigation for suspicious stock trading, should be especially vulnerable to corruption charges, since they claim to be the party of values, religion and morality. But the scandals aren’t at the top of voters’ reasons for condemning Republicans. According to a late November Democracy Corps poll, nationally, Americans favor a generic Democratic Congressman over a generic Republican by a 47 to 41 margin, more because of the substance of Republican policies than their “culture of corruption.”

Forcing unpopular policies

For example, the cuts in food stamps, Medicaid and student loans in the $50 billion House budget reconciliation bill were sold as offsetting the cost of Katrina relief. In reality, though, they were needed to pay for part of a planned $70 billion tax cut—much of it future capital gains and dividend cuts that benefit the rich. Republicans separated the two bills—and even deferred voting on the House tax cuts right after passing their reconciliation bill—to avoid the link. But the Emergency Campaign for American Priorities (ECAP), largely a reincarnation of the coalition that fought Social Security privatization, connected the two bills. According to Hart Research polling, two-thirds of voters thought the package of tax and budget cuts was a bad idea, including 55 percent of white evangelicals.

“We’ve stolen their moral thunder,” says Alan Charney, political director of USAction and ECAP coordinating committee chair. “We’re talking in very moral terms, and it has resonated: Don’t cut American priorities to pay for tax cuts for the rich.”

The House reconciliation bill narrowly passed, with united Democratic opposition and splintered Republican support, but the prospects looked bad for a compromise that would keep Republicans together on the much different Senate bill—especially as Republicans continue to push policies that are unpopular with most Americans, and don’t even work to boot.

Take the economy, for example. More than three-fifths of those polled told Gallup in mid-November that economic conditions were only fair or poor, and nearly the same percentage thought they were getting worse. They’re largely right: The recovery has been anemic compared to past business cycles; real income is down for most workers. And Bush’s tax and budget policies, along with issues he champions, such as weaker unions and corporate globalization, play a major role in fostering the growing inequality.

As Hacker and Pierson detail so well, Republicans have constructed a juggernaut designed to deliver such unpopular programs but protect themselves politically. But while they describe the political mechanics of class warfare, they present the problem as the “center” having lost its power. Needed electoral reforms, however, can’t happen until progressives gain power.

Democrats should note that the primary prescription for “bootstrapping” victory over Republican distortions of the electoral system is a stronger labor movement. Indeed, the fundamental problem, more than a weakened center, is that the Democrats have not devised a political response to the class warfare Republicans wage on behalf of the rich and the corporations. It is not an impossible task: On most counts, large majorities of Americans would be with them, if, like Dorothy’s companions on the road to Oz, they only had enough courage, heart and brains.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Sounds like someone preaching to the choir. I suspect that after the 2006 elections, Twain’s “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated” will haunt the Democrats.

  Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 29, 2005 at 10:41 AM

  One thing the Democrats need to do to defeat the Republican machine is to figure out how to answer the Repugnican charge of Gov’t. stealing your money.

  Don’t defend taxes, BUT DO explain them. It’s simple

  *without tax we wouldn’t have roads, schools, hospitals, no police, no fireman. No protective regulations that ensure a safe working environment, or that you must be fired with cause. Taxes pay for the maintenence of the infrastructure required to keep this country #1. Not one thing that makes this country great was possible without paying taxes. Even the wealthy owe their wealth to exploitation of laws and regulations that created a stable envioronment to invest and spend there money. Could Bill Gates have built microsoft if copyright laws in the USA were poorly enforced due to lack of funding. Would the software industry even exist if it weren’t for the Gov’t. paying for such enforcement via taxes.

  The Gov’t. ensures our elderly are taken care of via medicare. The Gov’t. takes care of our parks, and protects us.

  The cuts Repugnicans have made are starting to have their effect on those essential functions. Nat’l parks are in a state of decay. Seniors struggle more and more to meet basic health costs.Schools degenerate year after year.

  Tying taxes to very real, essential, comfort providing things in everyone’s life Dems. could reverse this issue and portray the Repugnicans as parasites bent on extracting wealth for the wealthy at the cost of destroying this nation.

  Europeans get it. Few Europeans complain about taxes, because they know what they get. This doesn’t mean they are happy, but they are not deluded and ignorantlycomplaining like so many Americans, who think tax money is money shot down a black hole.

  Of course this has to be expressed in catchy, soundbites. Like the Repug vote to cut funding for Nat’l parks meant Jashica Jones first and only trip to Yellowstone proved fatal when she fell through a unrepaired walkway. Unrepaired because for the 7th year in a row, Yellowstone received less money than Pat Robertson’s 700 club received in tax breaks.

  The heartbreaking story of Gov’t. failing us big and small (Katrina) are out there, and most can be tied to lack of funding. Dems. need to tie them together NOW, and stick the tag of blame where it belongs.

  Otherwise the Repugnicans will have no problem creating a big lie to blame them. It’s happened before, it will happen again

  Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 29, 2005 at 12:06 PM

  There certainly is a political environment throughout the country that both sides of the aisle have jumped on, that is the buying of votes with tax rebates.

  In Florida, with a no-state-income-tax policy enshrined in the state constitution, fair weather roads are a mess. In Minnesota, we all know that without state financing of the annual spring repair of roads assaulted by the annual thaw, we’d have no transportation at all in a few short years.

  Unfortunately, even Minnesotans are not immune to the biannual buy-the-vote road show.

  Rebates were initially used (in the current round of political history) to force Congress to stop wasting money on grossly inefficient government bureaucracies. But, all that happened was that programs were scaled back. They are still grossly ineffiecient, but we aren’t throwing as much money down that black hole.

  No real effort, short of Bush’s attempt to sell his Social Security Reform, has been made to actually rebuild more effective models.

  Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 29, 2005 at 1:20 PM

  Please PROVE or GIVE some evidence of the Government being “GROSSLY INEFFICIENT.”

  All I have ever seen put forth is various Defense Dept. purchases, and ironically that is the one part of Gov’t. that does NOT get cut.

  Too often I"ve found the evidence easy to discredit, but because people are so eager to believe that this is true, they don’t ask even simple questions.

  I remember the Defense Dept. hammer that contractors billed the Military over $100. The same hammer could be bought at a hardware store for only a few $$$. No one followed up and this little lie became fact. Unfortunately it was not. The cost of the hammer reflected the Military’s demand that it meet specific requirements, and that it be tested to ensure that it meet those requirements. This meant the manufacturer could NOT just sell off the shelf hammers to the Military. Instead they had to create a new one from scratch, keeping the military’s special needs in mind and test it. After all was said and done this was figured into the price.

  BUT LET’S SAY it was truly a bogus purchase, one that could have been made at True Value. 

  How come no one jumps on the seller for blatently ripping off our government?

  How come he’s not accused of being unpatriotic for ripping off our military. No it’s always the same blame Gov’t.

  Before you come up with examples, be sure and add 20% to the supposed price of something other than the Gov’t. doing performing a function. That 20% is to reflect PROFIT. No private company does work without profit.

  This is something people in Texas are learning slowly but surely. Recently after another round of steep utiltiy price increases, some savvy Texans got hold of the stockholder statements sent by those utility companies to ther shareholders. They were floored when they read things like “thanks to the 40% increase in rates XXX company was able to surpass last year’s 20% return on expenditures......”

  The newsletters also said things like “thanks to near total control of the revenue stream and assessments, we can assure all investors of a stable and healthy margin of profit for the forseable future.”

  In otherwords Texans are finding out they’re PRIVATE utility companies have turned into money sucking hogs worse than any Gov’t. 

  Gov’t. may be inneficcient, but it does NOT have to make a profit.

  Gov’t is pro-active in terms of infrastructure. Private Business ONLY reacts when there is a profit to be made.

  Profit is an extremely poor way to meet the needs of the country are met in a timely and equitable manner.

  Large corporations are risk averse. They only invest when a profit is sure. Many of the the functions and responsibilities of Gov’t. are NOT ever going to be profitable.

  Gov’t. also has to take into regards the general public’s belief of right and wrong, and often will spend quite a bit of money on something to make it right, even though it is not really worth the price. These things a private business would NEVER do if put in the Gov’ts. place.

  Things like managing endangered species
  Developing vaccines instead of super-expensive meds.

  Gov’t. does NOT pick and choose. Gov’t. takes care of the neediest and the most helpless. Things private business would NEVER touch, because there is no money to be made.

  Yet no one talks about how such functions and costs affect the picture when they are averaged. in with all other functions and costs expenditures the #s make Gov’t.  Without explanation the final numbers make Gov’t. seem much more inneffient than it is. 

  To say the Gov’t. is grossly inefficient is soooo easy, but it’s just the opposite if one demands irrefutable proof.

  Often merely putting the “fact, example” into context reveals the falseness of the assumption. Which is usually grounded in a person’s bias, and totally subjective.

  I mean has anyone asked Repugnican Ted Stevens if the billion dollar bridge to nowhere is worth the money he thinks we should spend on it?

  Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 29, 2005 at 3:34 PM

  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gao+inefficient+bureaucracy&btnG G=Google+Search

  The first one that pops up, a GAO study on how to implement the reorganization in 1995 of the federal government in the wake of the efforts to force the government as I described, is interesting.

  http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat1/154275.pdf

  It goes into some detail on how the federal bureaucracy, by its own nature, becomes inefficient.

  With regards to Ted Stevens’ bridge to nowhere, how much of that pork bill went to Democratic congressman?

  Please. Do your own homework. It ain’t that tough.

  Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 29, 2005 at 4:41 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 73 posts.

Member Login

Also by David Moberg

• Let Them Eat Free Markets
  How deregulation fuels the global food crisis
• Our Imperfect Unions
  
• Dismantling the Myth of McCain
  How the Republican senator's maverick image is a sham
• Main Street Squeeze
  
• Winning the White Working Class
  
• The Healthcare Union War
  Tensions between the California Nurses Association and SEIU escalate at the Labor Notes conference