E.J. Dionne Jr. offers an excellent analysis of, as he calls it, “what Bush threw away.” As I’ve written repeatedly, Bush’s 90% approval rating after 9/11 offered the nation and the world an awesome opportunity to regain clarity about what’s important in life and what’s best about mankind. Rather than be the leader of the country (and the free world) at that point, however, Bush decided to settle for being the leader of the Republican party:
For several months, Bush…stood above party. In assembling both a domestic and international coalition to wage war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the president put aside his critiques of unilateralism and “nation-building.” As I wrote at the time — yes, even I admired Bush that fall — the president “grafted the language of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman to the martial rhythms of Ronald Reagan.” He sought broad support, not narrow majorities, for the Afghan war and his emergency spending proposals.
Back then I thought Bush had an enormous political opportunity that matched the nation’s interest: to build a wide, sustainable, Eisenhower-like Republican majority. The country was waiting for a call to service, sacrifice and solidarity. It didn’t want the old ideological politics.
But Bush interpreted his prodigious approval ratings not as an opportunity for something new but as a chance to push the same ideological agenda he was pursuing before Sept. 11. It was a chance to create a Republican majority in Congress in the 2002 elections. It was a chance to push through even more tax cuts, and never mind the deficits created by all that new spending. If the Senate, facing the 2002 elections, could be badgered into giving the president broad authority to wage war against Saddam Hussein, why not short-circuit a more searching debate and just grab the power?
In short, Bush was historically short-sighted. He grossly underestimated the power at his disposal. Rather than shoot for the stars he settled for something far less grand. Even those who feel his plan for fighting the war on terror is something grand must agree that it stood a much better chance of success if he had managed to bring more of America and the world on board, and that “a call to service, sacrifice and solidarity” was the way to do that…NOT giving the richest among us an obscenely unaffordable tax cut, acting with unwarranted arrogance, etc., etc.
This is not a last minute attempt to sway anyone who hasn’t voted yet…the time for that is long past. Rather it’s a note to whoever succeeds today in becoming/regaining the title of “Leader of the country”: the job’s responsiblities transcend your party’s best interests. Aim higher than that please.
Rather it’s a note to whoever succeeds today in becoming/regaining the title of “Leader of the country”: the job’s responsiblities transcend your party’s best interests. Aim higher than that please.
I’d like to broaden the focus of that remark and say to everyone — those directly involved in the process and those who are not — that we need to aim higher. All of us.
I don’t think that was a tactical decison by Bush, I think it was a visceral one. He was, and remained, so convinced that his agenda was unquestionably wise that he saw himself as building precisely the consensus Dionne talks about, but behind that same agenda.
It was precisely his certainty and utter lack of reflection that led him to the mistake Dionne describes.
Bush made a reasonable start at a “coalition against terror”, but then he dropped it. Problem with a coalition is that the glory has to be shared. Bush insists on being the only one in the frame.
“only one in the frame?”
Bush flew to the Canaries to meet Anzar on his home turf, as well as Blair and, I think Berloscuni. He’s always been thanking them publically, and don’t forget Poland! Hasn’t he been accused of pimping the Coalition of the Bribed incessantly? Which is it? Escape the bubble dude!
and Edward, I don’t blame Bush at all for his approval numbers going from 90 to 50%. On say, 9/15/01 not approving of the US Government was tantamount to saying that the wreckage in New York was good work. His approval was as mile wide but mostly an inch deep. You may disagree with his plan, but leadership is all about setting a course and sticking to it. We’ll see by tomorrow (hopefully) if that was wise for Bush, electorially speaking, but realize that you’re essentially condemning him for wanting to do right instead of to be popular. (Acknowledging you don’t much care for his opinions on what right means!)
Anarch wisely says:
“I’d like to broaden the focus of that remark and say to everyone — those directly involved in the process and those who are not — that we need to aim higher. All of us.”
Benard says:
“It was precisely his certainty and utter lack of reflection that led him to the mistake Dionne describes”
Lightning says:
“Problem with a coalition is that the glory has to be shared. Bush insists on being the only one in the frame.”
Am I the only one that finds that interesting?
Mike
Interesting point. When was the meeting in the Canaries? What sort of meetings have there been in the interim? I would personally be much more impressed if Bush said ‘to hell with my re-election, I’m going to forgo campaigning because I am confident that what I am doing will be adjudged right and I am going to make sure that all the pieces are in place for success, because whether Republicans or Democrats succeed, it doesn’t matter as long as American succeeds’ (this, of course, falls into the long tradition of blog advice to candidates who one would never support ;^>)
You have an interesting view of approval ratings as three dimensional objects. I’m not how one would go about proving or refuting the ‘mile wide but inch deep’ comment. I do know that my support after Afghanistan was sincere, and I have to assume others who say the same are being honest about their feelings. I do blame Bush from approval rating drop because (as one of those internationalists types) Afghanistan offered a unique opportunity (IMHO) to actually do nation building. Again, hindsight is 20/20, but had we spent as much money on setting up a democratic state in Afghanistan and left Saddam to be contained, I think we would be in a much better position than we are now. This hinges on how much we can view SH as a threat and there has clearly been too many bytes sacrificed over that. This brief note by Yglesias links to three essays taking people like me (liberal hawks) to task. I’m sure MY will write something a lot more interesting than me about this, but I will say that I think the level of (possible self) deception in amassing evidence makes it clear that any ‘contract’ I entered into in supporting our invasion of Iraq makes it null and void (though I’m not a lawyer, so whether this operates in this fashion in the real world, I have no idea). I will also say that the level of mismanagement of the occupation also relieves me of my duty to support the administration.
Blue,
Care to elaborate? It’s not clear to me what you’re getting at.