The sundered GOP: Is it all Bush’s fault?

posted at 12:45 pm on February 6, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

I’ll say at the outset that my intent here isn’t to bash Bush or to ignore the good things he has done, particularly on the Supreme Court. My intent is to get a handle on what’s gone wrong so that it might be fixed.

There’s a striking similarity between the Bush 43 and Clinton 42 presidencies: Both left their parties weaker than they were when they won the presidency. Clinton inherited a Democrat party that dominated governorships, legislatures and Congress, but when he left, the Republicans dominated state and national politics across the board. Likewise, Bush inherited that strong GOP but as he leaves, the Democrats own Congress and dominate in the states. Some of this is undoubtedly cyclical; voters just get tired of a party and vote them out after a while. There is one crucial difference, though, between the Bush and Clinton exits and that’s where the parties find themselves as political forces. The Democrats after Clinton haven’t been any more divided than their collection of interest groups usually is, but the Republicans after Bush are almost in a state of civil war and on the cusp of nominating a presidential contender who is unacceptable to much of the party’s base.

It may be President Bush’s fault, almost by himself, that the Republicans find ourselves in the shape we’re in: A front-runner who isn’t winning in the South, a second-place candidate who doesn’t win hotly contested primaries, and a third candidate who’s a social con populist Know-Nothing on foreign policy who can only win in the South. Here are a few reasons why.

1. Iraq. Bush allowed the 2003 victory to become the 2003-2007 quagmire, robbing the GOP of its national security advantage. He didn’t allow it to happen intentionally, of course, but did let events get away from him for far too long. Additionally, when attacked by Ted Kennedy et al from the “Bush LIED” angle, the Bush administration failed to fight back. That handed the middle ground to his critics, moving the entire country to the left and therefore against the war, which also hurt the GOP’s national security advantage. It has also demoralized conservatives who support the war but have come to view Bush as weak in making his case to continue it. I am certainly in that category, and if asked by a pollster would say that I disapprove of the way Bush is handling the war. That’s not because I oppose the war; I don’t. I support it strongly. I support the surge. I just don’t think the administration is handling the domestic side of the fight very well at all. That speaks directly of President Bush’s leadership and priorities.

2. Cheney. Dick Cheney has been a fine vice president in my opinion, but his age and health concerns made him an instant non-starter to succeed Bush. With no heir apparent, the party’s various factions have put forward their own candidates: McCain for national security conservatives, Huckabee for social conservatives, and Romney or Paul for economic conservatives. Paul’s attacks on the Iraq war from within the party haven’t helped, but probably haven’t contributed much to the split either. But the fact that McCain has a long history of supporting positions that are anathema to most conservatives, the fact that Huckabee is really a populist on economics and that Romney’s unique history and perceived slickness made him distrusted by a large segment of the party mean that this year’s race was destined to be contentious. Romney has tried to make the sale that he’s the only full-spectrum conservative in the race, but hasn’t closed the deal. The lack of a viable vice president to run behind Bush made the current split inevitable. It may also have contributed to Bush’s lack of self-defense on the war: With no candidate to follow him that could be seen as running on Bush’s legacy, he may not have seen a strong enough reason to mount a continuous defense of his policies. Cheney was, of course, Bush’s choice.

3. Immigration. Illegal immigration is one among many issues upon which the Republican coalition can split, mainly along the fault lines between economic conservatives and security conservatives. The former favor more or less open borders as a supply of cheap labor, while the latter see the porous borders as serious security threats. President Bush announced in early 2004 that if re-elected, he would pursue “comprehensive immigration reform.” That was seen, rightly, as code for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and as having little or no real positive impact on border security. Previous amnesties followed that pattern, and led to more illegal immigration and less security. The base of the party didn’t like Bush’s plan and let him know that in no uncertain terms, but voted him back into office largely because of the war and because he wasn’t John Kerry. Second term Bush not only did not back down on “comprehensive immigration reform,” he tried to push it through Congress. Twice. In the teeth of fierce conservative opposition, both times. And he and his surrogates called his opponents within his own party “nativists” and the like, when all along border security has been primarily a national security issue. After 9-11, it took on new significance, but Bush et al evidently never saw that significance. The nature of the reform itself plus the way Bush, McCain et al dealt with their own fellow Republicans in opposition created a split that has yet to heal and isn’t likely to heal any time soon. Unfairly demagoguing the issue and calling opponents “racist” and the like tends to leave them bitter. Bush should have foreseen that, but didn’t, fracturing the party. More attention to the security base and less inflammatory tactics could have prevented this outcome. This has also exacerbated the tension between McCain and the base.

There are other issues that have contributed to the losses in 2006 and what looks like a loss coming this fall, but I do think these three factors come closest to explaining why the Republicans are split and bickering among ourselves. Of the three, the most easily foreseen and prevented was putting Dick Cheney on the ticket. As I said, I think Cheney has been a fine VP and I have no policy problems with him. But his presence hasn’t helped the Republicans figure out what to do after Bush.

If you’re wondering what this means for the future, McCain is probably more likely to defend the war and doesn’t carry the “Bush LIED” baggage. That’s a plus. His veep pick will be crucial not only to reconciling him with conservatives but, should he win, to forecasting the future politics of the GOP. As of yet, that’s an unknown. Unfortunately, McCain is with Bush on the immigration issue right down to the smear tactics. That’s a minus.

Blowback

You must be logged in to post a comment.