“I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it,” boasted President George W. Bush after winning re-election last November. Bush’s political position seemed sturdy. He had won a second term, and, in fact, was the first presidential candidate to receive a majority of the votes since 1988. Additionally, his Republican allies solidified their hold on Congress.
Today, however, polls show support for Bush and congressional Republicans has eroded. Bush’s approval ratings have dipped to record lows. In the most recent New York Times poll, only 42 percent approved of Bush’s performance. At this time two years ago, 67 percent approved. Voters also disapproved with Bush on nearly all the key issues: Iraq, foreign policy, Social Security, and the economy. Long a political strength for Bush, the public is now divided on the president’s management of the war on terrorism. Most Americans — 61 percent — do not feel President Bush shares their priorities. One poll found that a majority sees Bush — who based his 2000 campaign on being a “uniter, not a divider” — as a divisive figure.
Congress does not escape rebuke either. A mere 33 percent are satisfied with how Congress is doing its job, and most of the anger is directed at the Republican Party, which holds majorities in both houses. Americans blame the president and congressional Republicans for not solving the nation’s problems by a 67-13 margin.
Congress has failed to pass an energy bill, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, Social Security reform, or any other domestic legislation deemed a priority by the administration. But it has bucked public opinion by intervening in divisive social debates that pitted it against the judicial branch and state governments. Accusations of improper campaign payments and foreign travel, focusing largely on Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have created the impression of influence peddling in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, at least six Republicans — most notable John McCain and Bill Frist — are potential presidential candidates, fueling infighting and intrigue.
Added to this, Republicans in Congress, once criticized as being a rubber stamp for all Bush initiatives, have demonstrated independence in recent weeks. For example, the House passed a measure on stem cell research opposed by the White House. Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, who served in Bush’s Cabinet during the first term, supports closing the Guantanamo Bay prison. Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, usually a party loyalist, introduced legislation calling for the US to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Jones justified his position by noting the cost of the war: $200 billion, 1,700 killed, and 12,000 wounded.
In the American two-party system usually when one party falls, the other gains. But that has not been the case for the Democratic Party this year. Democrats have remained dispirited since the fall election, which saw Bush narrowly re-elected and the Republicans unexpectedly tightened their grip on both chambers of Congress.
The malaise in the Democratic Party has left the party with a leadership vacuum, lacking fresh ideas, and awaiting a phoenix to rise from the ashes and lead the party back to power. Congressional Democrats are playing the role of spoilers, opposing Republican initiatives to gut New Deal social programs and protesting the appointments of conservative judges and other undesirables, such as John Bolton. It is a defensive strategy that may be necessary, but does not inspire voters. This explains why Democratic approval ratings remain low.
Looking toward 2008, there is not a dearth of Democratic presidential aspirants. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, former Sen. John Edwards, and 2004 nominee John Kerry are all potential contenders. And of course, there is the presumptive front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who enjoys enthusiastic support within the party, but is passionately despised by Republicans.
Historical parallels are always useful, but imprecise. In 1968, the Vietnam War nearly destroyed the Democratic Party, which controlled both the White House and Congress. Vietnam forced President Lyndon Johnson into retirement and divided the party between hawks and doves. The 1968 Democratic Convention, which erupted into an infamous riot, highlighted the party’s apparent collapse. This opened the door to Richard Nixon and a new breed of conservative Republicans.
Certainly, there is a great danger for the Republican Party today. When one party controls both the legislative and executive branches, it bears the responsibility — in polls and at the ballot box — of governing. Should Iraq remain volatile, the Republicans will pay the political price. Republicans will also be blamed if pressing domestic issues such as the economy, energy, health care, and Social Security are not addressed.
Of course, great opportunity also exists. But if there is no detectable political recovery in the next six months, Bush’s visions of encouraging democracy and a free trade zone in the Middle East will be in peril, and Republican hegemony in serious jeopardy. Bush could easily find himself burdened with a prolonged lame-duck period. Regardless, the overall political picture in the United States today shows an electorate unhappy with its commander in chief and his allies in Congress, and unsatisfied with the opposition.
— David Dumke is principal of the MidAmr Group.
