tm dot μ dot ν

What is Bush doing? a long-term strategy analysis

Over at the Washington Post (via The Corner on NRO), Rich Lowry has a column about President Bush's unwillingness to enter the culture wars. Basically, he says that it's a bad thing for conservatives.

I'm not so sure. I wonder if there isn't more behind the President's actions than meets the eye.

Dubya campaigned on a solid, staid conservative platform. Yeah, he had a few new ideas (faith-based social programs) but on the whole he ran an unremarkable populist-conservative campaign. After winning by a nose, he more-or-less stuck to a moderate conservative policy. The government was split (Senate was 50-50, then 50-49 for the Dems; Republicans had the House and 1600 Penn. Ave.)

Then the September 11 attacks occurred. Bush's numbers went through the roof. What did he do with his new-found political capital? He spent almost all of it on foreign policies, enunciating a bold new plan to basically democratize the Middle East. Yes, he passed a tax cut, but it was chopped almost in half by Democratic congressional leaders.

The midterm elections of 2002 showed overwhelming support for Bush and his party, as the Republicans actually gained seats in both houses, which virtually never happens to the party controlling the White House. They now have thin majorities in both houses.

All right, conservatives said, now we've finally got Congress and the White House for the first time in maybe half a century. It's time to get some real work done. But the President continues to play from the center. As Rich Lowry points out above, the rhetoric from the Administration has been very mild and appeasing to both sides. He continues to compromise with Democratic leadership on domestic issues, a stance that is being increasingly criticized by fiscal and social conservatives. He's wishy-washy and pandering; this isn't the straight-talking man-of-the-people we elected. What is George W. doing?

First off, I think he realizes that more important than stopping a prescription-drug benefit or denouncing gay marriage is the ongoing war on terrorism. Culture wars simply take a back seat to the defense of Western civilization.

But secondly, by yielding to the Left on these issues, he's pushing the Democrats further and further leftward. He's co-opting the middle and sending the opposition so far out of the mainstream that, he hopes, they will become a permanent minority party, a regional power in New England and on the Left Coast but hopelessly crippled in the South, the Midwest and the rest of the West. If he wins 2004 (which I think is a reasonably safe bet) and adds onto his Congressional majorities... I think he will have won, and will be able to slide right a little.

I don't know if we'll see a return to firm conservatism in Republican Party leadership, though, and here's why: It's a political assumption that about 40% of voters will almost always vote Republican, 40% Democrat and the remaining 20% could go either way. Bush is basically appealing to those 20% moderate voters by moving towards the center and getting his base to be quiet so the moderates can hear the Democrats' squawking from the far left. If his ploy works, the spread will look more like 50-15-35 or so. The Republicans will have to continue to play to the center or the Democrats will bounce back.

However... according to my rule in the post below, 30%ish is the minimum a political party can garner and remain viable. If the Dems go below this they might as well all join the Republican Party. Don't think that will happen but if it did, the fighting would basically take place in the primaries, and the general election would be pretty much a formality. But another possibility -- and one that has happened several times in our nation's history -- is that a third party might emerge, in this case from the Republican base and having a strong libertarian bent. The Republican Party would end up being center-left (pretty much where Clinton was) and (we'll call it the) Conservative Party would be fiscally conservative, socially, um, confused at best.

I have no clue if this scenario is possible or likely. Maybe Bush's strategy has been totally misread here. Still, it's something for Bush-bashers from the right to consider. Including me.

Update: Via NRO's Corner, this blogger disagrees with Lowry's column as well but attributes personal motives to Bush (basically that he feels the need to win re-election for his father's sake) instead of the political ones I give here. Entirely possible alternative as well. But if it's true I and, I suspect, large portions of his base, be quite angry with him. You don't play games with federal politics for your own peace of mind or personal wants.

Posted by Tim at August 10, 2003 03:05 PM