Is the Republican Congress a Tool of the President?
That’s what many would have you believe, particularly in the wake of the Patriot Act Renewal, and with the increasing likelihood that the NSA program of the President will continue. For example, there’s the ubiquitous Glenn Greenwald:
…[I]t is almost unfathomable how little personal dignity these compliant GOP Senators have. Sens. Snowe and Hagel issued a statement in December pompously expressing their “profound concern” over the eavesdropping program and proclaiming that it is “critical” that the Senate hold hearings in order to learn what the Administration did when spying outside of FISA and without warrants on Americans.
After standing up and publicly making those statement and issuing those demands, they completely reverse themselves a few weeks later when the White House decrees that they do so. They thus vote against the very investigation which they both insisted, in public, was so critically important. If nothing else, just on a personal level, shouldn’t they be way too embarrassed to be so blatantly manipulated and controlled, to the point where they demand hearings only to then vote against those same hearings a short time later all because that’s what the White House demands?
It takes very little effort or imagination to put the lie to this theory, though – just take a look at the UAE ports debacle to see how quickly the Republican leadership will throw Bush overboard – or Harriet Miers, or Social Security reform, or…
In some quarters, indeed, it is muttered that the White House has lost its touch, and the Republicans are beginning to distance themselves. But that’s too pat a scenario, too – the variable in this relationship is not Bush – it’s the polls.
The Republican congressional ‘leadership’ is indeed craven and devoid of courage, for the most part, yet it’s not Bush’s whip they jump for, but rather the pollster’s. When you look at the President, like him or hate him, you see a man who is not afraid to take an unpopular stand; yet every time the going gets rough, he is abandoned by the Congress. The NSA program is not in danger because the public LIKES it, or at least is not overly concerned…right or wrong, the majority of the public feels it is an acceptable tradeoff of privacy versus security – and just as plainly, the majority of the public does not feel the ports deal is good for security.
What about Iraq, then? Surely that blows my theory out of the water…well, not really. It’s true that the war is tremendously unpopular. However, at least until recently, the opposition to the war was overwhelmingly with Democratic voters – and the Democratic leadership just as cravenly began to drift towards an anti-war position. Politicians, with rare exceptions, have one finger to the wind, always, to catch the drift of opinion. They would rather be wrong, and elected again, than right and out of power.
The other way that Iraq constrains the Republican leadership is its centrality to the party; it is overwhelmingly difficult for Republicans to extract themselves from the position that the war is necessary and vital – it, and the War on Terror, are the raison d’être for most Republicans, the issue that dominates all others. Make no mistake, though, the Congress knows which way the wind is blowing, and if they have an opportunity to bail, and to save at least a little face, they will gratefully seize it and declare victory.
Some of my regulars no doubt wonder why I continue to be such a die-hard supporter of the President, even with all the problems (and they are many, to be sure). It is the quality of leadership that the President displays that wins me over every time. He did not back off of the NSA program, he is not backing off of the ports deal, and he will never abandon Iraq. Even when he does retreat, as with Harriet Miers and Social Security, it is under great duress. Some may call this stubbornness – and sure, there’s a sizable element of that. There are worse things, though, than moral certitude – moral relativism comes to mind. America needed a leader who saw in black and white after 9/11, rather than one who equivicated to the point of helplessness. Thank God we had one – and would that we had more of his kind in Congress…
“It is the quality of leadership that the President displays that wins me over every time.”
Wow. Absolutely stunning remark. Is there a greater fool in all of blogland?
No, but we like having you here anway…
Choosing your position on the issues based on polls is, by definition, following. Doing what you think is right, without regard for its popularity among the public, is leading. I don’t know how anyone can honestly accuse Bush of failing to lead. Disagreeing with where he wants to go? Sure, of course, but that is an entirely different discussion.
As for stubbornness, well, he demonstrates that trait too. But there is a fine line between seeing something to its conclusion and being stubborn, with the difference often being the eventual result. That Bush sometimes backs an issue too long demonstrates, for me, his commitment to his ideas. That he does many things that have high potential for being politically damaging to himself tells me a lot about his motivation.
Hey Henry, have a good time under the bridge tonight, Trolly.
I agree Mark. I am a pretty big GWB fan I just finished Rebel in Chief and like him even more. Obviously Fred Barnes is a big GWB fan as well.
If you define leadership as doing what you think is right regardless of public opinion, then presumably you would give high marks to George H W Bush for raising taxes, Jimmy Carter for boycotting the Olympics, and Bill Clinton for promoting NAFTA.
In my opinion, Bush has really done very little which has gone against the grain of public opinion. In the aftermath of 9/11, he had bipartisan support in invading Iraq. Once the majority of Americans came to realize that the Iraqi invasion is disastrous, his insistence on staying the course is because of the inability to admit a mistake, not because of leadership. The difference between leadership and stubbornness is that a leader will reevaluate his decisions based on new information. An ancient Greek (Herodotus?) said that you can’t step in the same river twice (because the water flows, and the second time you enter, the river is different). Since the events on the ground change every day, sticking to the same course you had at the outset shows rigidity and not an obedience to a higher principle.
My guess is that he had no idea that Harriet Miers would be greeted with catcalls by nearly everyone (ditto for the ports deal), or that Social Security reform would be a non-starter. Some of his initiatives were simply dropped when there was no public support (remember the SOTU speech where he promised to rejuvenate the space program?).
To return to the first paragraph: I think Bush I showed leadership in raising taxes, because it was the right thing to do and was certain to be politically damaging. His son lowered taxes, which engendered a huge budget deficit. Everyone likes lower taxes – it’s the easiest thing to do politically, but it is not often the right thing to do. Show me a politician who will endorse higher taxes, and I will show you a leader.
Sure, like Walter Mondale – now, THERE was a leader!
peter, those assertions are not going to age well to say the least. On the war, enough said for now though some familiarity with the conduct of wars historically would be helpful, but on those dreaded tax cuts… so, I guess these tax cuts for the rich have cut federal revenues? Is that right? Or is there some other downside to reduced income tax rates that I am missing?
Just so ya know, revenues are NOT down. No sir. “huge budget deficit”? By what standard? Not as a fraction of GDP, which I am confident most economists would say is the definitive figure. Absolute dollar amounts must always be adjusted.
The downside to reduced income tax rates is that the government has to borrow the money to pay the bills. In addition to saddling future generations with repayment of the debt, we are now vulnerable to the whims of foreign central bankers. Like a crack addict, we have to pay whatever it takes for to sell government paper. If the foreign banks decide they have enough US government debt – or if the dollar falls substantially – we are without a paddle.
Perhaps you do not feel that ~ $450 billion is a huge budget deficit. While it is a record in absolute dollars, it is also near a record for percentage of GDP. The 2004 deficit was 3.6% of GDP, the highest level since 1993 (3.9%).
Moreover, “most economists” would tell you that deficit spending typically occurs when an economy is in recession and fiscal policy is designed to stimulate the economy. The problem with deficit spending in an expanding economy is that you don’t have any powder left if the economy tanks.
peter, regarding your original three points:…high marks to George H W Bush for raising taxes, Jimmy Carter for boycotting the Olympics, and Bill Clinton for promoting NAFTA…yes, yes, and yes (don’t agree with the first one, but yes, took political courage and leadership).
None of which detracts from the courage of George W. Bush to invade Iraq when Bill Clinton was more than happy to look the other way on foreign policy – you are wrong that George W. Bush took the easy road on Iraq – the easy road was to attack Afghanistan and then do nothing…
It’s not always about public opinion – the fact that he was willing to act in the face of UN and European impotence counts for something, as well.
I feel George Bush has done a respectable job as President considering the events that have happened in the past 5 years. I will continue to be one of his more ardent supporters. In my opinion, Republicans in Congress have supported him well on most issues and will probably do so in the future. Our two Senators, Bond and Talent, and my representative, Sam Graves, have voted with him on a vast, vast majority of issues and I feel will continue to do so.
As for taxes, Bush is correct on that issue also. Raising taxes is just plain wrong. It is not the right “thing” to do. Taxes are already too high in this country.
If you think taxes are high here, maybe you should try living in Europe. I thought Republicans were suppose to be the “fiscally responsible” party? You can’t cut taxes while increasing spending.
The Republican party made a small effort recently to remedy this by cutting entitlement programs. Unfortunately, this action is more than offset by the tax cuts. Meanwhile, I have to pay more for student loans which pisses me off. Maybe we can take some of the $250 billion we are wasting on Iraq and pay for some of my ridiculously expensive “out-of-state” tuition.
You can forget about spending cuts in an election year.
The Wall Street Journal has released a scholarly ranking of all presidents, best to worst, for at least the last two years.
2005 Rankings: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007243
James Taranto explains the rankings (link on ratings page), and I’ll do my best to summarize it here.
W comes in just about dead-center: 19th of 40. William H Harrison and Garfield are excluded. The reason for this, of course, is that with a weighted average, the liberal scholars that give Bush a rating of 1 or 2 and the conservatives that give him a 4 or 5 end up cancelling out, but he probably won’t be there in a few decades.
What clearly doesn’t matter are the current approval ratings. Harry Truman, (7th in 2005 and 5th in 2004) had an approval rating somewhere in the 20’s when he left office. Harding, next-to-last, had very high rantings when he retired.
One thing that seperates the great and near-great presidents from the others is that they faced unprecedented challenges (W’s fulfilled that requirement, clearly enough) AND they overcame them — FDR and WWII, Reagan and stagflation, etc.
Taranto also points out that the above avg. and high avg. presidents’ problems aren’t that they didn’t try. Rather, they had great vision and ambitions, but things just didn’t work out — Wilson and the League of Nations, Johnson and the Great Society.
The failures and below-avg. presidents sat back idly during disasters — Buchanan during the Secession Crisis, Hoover and the Great Depression.
I have a feeling (even though I personally believe that the gov. and mayor bear greater responsibility) W will be judged very poorly over Katrina. However, with 9-11 and the War on Terror, he’s in at least the above-avg. club. So, if Iraq and Afghanistan grow into stable, liberal democratic countries, like Eastern Europe today, then Bush will be at least above avg. If not, then he’ll probably end up average.
The Dubai Ports deal, while it is a minor event that will not garner much attention in the context of history (much less significant than 9-11 or Katrina), is an example of Bush being on the right side of an issue, while almost everyone else, including his own party, falls into what can only be described as xenophobia.
“Maybe we can take some of the $250 billion we are wasting on Iraq and pay for some of my ridiculously expensive “out-of-state” tuition.”
Maybe we should have taken away some of the support we wasted on Solidarity during the 80’s to pay for entitlements, too.
Heraclitus Peter, Heraclitus. (By the way I’m not trying to be an a**hole….I came across the passage that you mentioned just yesterday.)
You guys are too learned for me…I thought Heraclitus was George Clooney’s brother…
Heraclitus, Heroditus — it’s all Greek to me — thanks Mason!