Republicans and the Bush dilemma
Republicans and the Bush dilemma
By Jacob Weisberg
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: January 17 2007 21:47 | Last updated: January 17 2007 21:47
Congressional Democrats seldom agonise before ditching presidents of their own party. In 1967, they abandoned Lyndon Johnson right and left – the right over civil rights, the left over Vietnam. A decade later, they rejected Jimmy Carter’s legislative agenda. Bill Clinton faced constant rebellion from his own side.
Republicans are made of firmer stuff. They value loyalty, hierarchy and deference above independence and private conscience. When the GOP controls the White House, the party’s congressional wing readily accepts its subordinate position. For an example of widespread GOP abandonment of a president of their own party, one has to go back to Watergate, when, as now, Republican legislators faced a tricky calculation about how to handle an increasingly embattled, isolated and failing president.
For the moment, the problem is largely framed in terms of George W. Bush’s proposal to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq. In the next few weeks, the House of Representatives and the Senate will consider resolutions opposing the “surge”. Though these measures will be non-binding, they will amount to a no-confidence test. Losing his own party’s support on the war would be an unprecedented repudiation, marking the end of Mr Bush’s ability to govern or lead. If you are a Republican in Congress, how do you decide whether to join the dissidents or stick with Mr Bush?
If you are a moderate, from the north-east or facing a tough re-election campaign in 2008, the imperative is clear – abandon ship. As even his bitter-enders acknowledge, Mr Bush’s policies just cost the GOP control of Congress. But 2008, when 22 of the 34 contested Senate seats will be those belonging to Republicans, could make 2006 look like a picnic. Those already clambering for the lifeboats include vulnerable incumbents, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Susan Collins of Maine. Of this group, Mr Smith has broken with Mr Bush most brutally, calling the war in Iraq “absurd” and possibly “criminal”.
If you are a Republican running for president rather than for re-election, the calculation is quite different. It is about the views of conservative primary voters, not swing voters in a general election. The three candidates who face the greatest conservative scepticism – John McCain, Arizona senator; Rudolph Giuliani, former New York mayor; and Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor – have all opted to endorse the surge idea. For Mr McCain, this is a matter of simple consistency. Given his hawkish views to date, it would be preposterous for him to turn against the Iraq war now. But not lost on Mr McCain is the importance of shoring up the support of a party establishment still supportive of Mr Bush. Mr Romney, who is attempting to be the candidate of the GOP’s conservative base, wants even less daylight between himself and the president. For his part, Mr Giuliani realises that a Republican moderate cannot also be a Republican maverick.
Curiously, two more conservative presidential hopefuls, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have both come out against the surge. Their computation is more complicated. Both Mr Brownback and Mr Hagel are second-tier candidates. Their presidential opportunity arises only if those in the first tier – Messrs McCain, Romney and Giuliani – falter. Should Mr Romney’s hawkish stance become untenable, Mr Brownback will be positioned as the right wing’s surge sceptic. Mr Hagel, cast in the vexed role of understudy to the Senate’s leading maverick, is clearly tired of walking in Mr McCain’s shadow. Should the demand arise for an independent-minded conservative without Mr McCain’s Iraq baggage, Mr Hagel will be the man.
Many congressional Republicans not running for president privately share Mr Hagel’s anti-war views but fear the wrath of the party’s disciplinarians. An object lesson was recently provided by Jeff Flake, an Arizona congressman, who lost a coveted committee seat as punishment for siding with Democratic reforms on a reform vote. Republican legislators also face the problem of explaining why they are changing their minds on the war after supporting it for four years. For the bulk of them, the safest course is to stall and sound sceptical without crossing Mr Bush directly while hoping that Democratic opponents of the war will miscalculate. John Warner, the silver-haired Virginian on the Senate armed services committee, who has been calling for more time to consider the president’s plan, is the master of this sort of fog and fudge.
Finally, there are those who face the political hacks’ imperative. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, last week called Mr Bush’s surge speech “courageous and correct”. John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, says the plan offers “our best shot at victory in Iraq”. If your job is to whip others for the president, dissent is not an option.
We saw these types during Watergate, too – Mr Bush’s father, then chairman of the Republican national committee, was one of them. The greatest was the comically loyal Earl Landgrebe, a now forgotten Indiana congressman. “Don’t confuse me with the facts,” Mr Landgrebe said the day before Mr Nixon resigned. “I’m going to stick with my president even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot.” That remains the default Republican position. It is going to be sorely tested in the months ahead.
The writer is editor of Slate.com
By Jacob Weisberg
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: January 17 2007 21:47 | Last updated: January 17 2007 21:47
Congressional Democrats seldom agonise before ditching presidents of their own party. In 1967, they abandoned Lyndon Johnson right and left – the right over civil rights, the left over Vietnam. A decade later, they rejected Jimmy Carter’s legislative agenda. Bill Clinton faced constant rebellion from his own side.
Republicans are made of firmer stuff. They value loyalty, hierarchy and deference above independence and private conscience. When the GOP controls the White House, the party’s congressional wing readily accepts its subordinate position. For an example of widespread GOP abandonment of a president of their own party, one has to go back to Watergate, when, as now, Republican legislators faced a tricky calculation about how to handle an increasingly embattled, isolated and failing president.
For the moment, the problem is largely framed in terms of George W. Bush’s proposal to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq. In the next few weeks, the House of Representatives and the Senate will consider resolutions opposing the “surge”. Though these measures will be non-binding, they will amount to a no-confidence test. Losing his own party’s support on the war would be an unprecedented repudiation, marking the end of Mr Bush’s ability to govern or lead. If you are a Republican in Congress, how do you decide whether to join the dissidents or stick with Mr Bush?
If you are a moderate, from the north-east or facing a tough re-election campaign in 2008, the imperative is clear – abandon ship. As even his bitter-enders acknowledge, Mr Bush’s policies just cost the GOP control of Congress. But 2008, when 22 of the 34 contested Senate seats will be those belonging to Republicans, could make 2006 look like a picnic. Those already clambering for the lifeboats include vulnerable incumbents, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Susan Collins of Maine. Of this group, Mr Smith has broken with Mr Bush most brutally, calling the war in Iraq “absurd” and possibly “criminal”.
If you are a Republican running for president rather than for re-election, the calculation is quite different. It is about the views of conservative primary voters, not swing voters in a general election. The three candidates who face the greatest conservative scepticism – John McCain, Arizona senator; Rudolph Giuliani, former New York mayor; and Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor – have all opted to endorse the surge idea. For Mr McCain, this is a matter of simple consistency. Given his hawkish views to date, it would be preposterous for him to turn against the Iraq war now. But not lost on Mr McCain is the importance of shoring up the support of a party establishment still supportive of Mr Bush. Mr Romney, who is attempting to be the candidate of the GOP’s conservative base, wants even less daylight between himself and the president. For his part, Mr Giuliani realises that a Republican moderate cannot also be a Republican maverick.
Curiously, two more conservative presidential hopefuls, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have both come out against the surge. Their computation is more complicated. Both Mr Brownback and Mr Hagel are second-tier candidates. Their presidential opportunity arises only if those in the first tier – Messrs McCain, Romney and Giuliani – falter. Should Mr Romney’s hawkish stance become untenable, Mr Brownback will be positioned as the right wing’s surge sceptic. Mr Hagel, cast in the vexed role of understudy to the Senate’s leading maverick, is clearly tired of walking in Mr McCain’s shadow. Should the demand arise for an independent-minded conservative without Mr McCain’s Iraq baggage, Mr Hagel will be the man.
Many congressional Republicans not running for president privately share Mr Hagel’s anti-war views but fear the wrath of the party’s disciplinarians. An object lesson was recently provided by Jeff Flake, an Arizona congressman, who lost a coveted committee seat as punishment for siding with Democratic reforms on a reform vote. Republican legislators also face the problem of explaining why they are changing their minds on the war after supporting it for four years. For the bulk of them, the safest course is to stall and sound sceptical without crossing Mr Bush directly while hoping that Democratic opponents of the war will miscalculate. John Warner, the silver-haired Virginian on the Senate armed services committee, who has been calling for more time to consider the president’s plan, is the master of this sort of fog and fudge.
Finally, there are those who face the political hacks’ imperative. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, last week called Mr Bush’s surge speech “courageous and correct”. John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, says the plan offers “our best shot at victory in Iraq”. If your job is to whip others for the president, dissent is not an option.
We saw these types during Watergate, too – Mr Bush’s father, then chairman of the Republican national committee, was one of them. The greatest was the comically loyal Earl Landgrebe, a now forgotten Indiana congressman. “Don’t confuse me with the facts,” Mr Landgrebe said the day before Mr Nixon resigned. “I’m going to stick with my president even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot.” That remains the default Republican position. It is going to be sorely tested in the months ahead.
The writer is editor of Slate.com
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home