July 25, 2003
Danius Maximus writes:
The war in Iraq has proved to be only a temporary and rapidly evaporating help to Bush's political fortunes. The equation of support for war equals support for Bush has already vanished and his standing in the polls is now roughly the same as it was before 9/11. From here on out, Iraq is more likely to generate bad new for Bush than provide support for his presidency. All the same, Bush's political opponents will not benefit from passively waiting for things to get worse.
It is equally dangerous to underestimate one's opponent as it is to overestimate him. Many have taken comfort by deriding Bush's intellectual capabilities. While this view certainly has merit, it tends to underestimate Bush's political skills, which, combined with his sheer audacity, have made him a truly dangerous leader. But now that Bush is foundering over the Iraq war, both with respect to the non-existent weapons of mass destruction and to the sheer incompetence of the occupation, we should not err in the other direction and assume that Bush is a political superman who can continue his political hot streak indefinitely.
Bush is in trouble. And that creates a political opening that we should be eager to fill.
Consider the views of one Dick Morris, a Republican consultant who nonetheless worked for Bill Clinton but who has been generally supportive of the Bush Administration. It's his view that Bush is in free fall.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/20/225252
Since the US "won" the Iraq war, the polls have been showing persistent down-ticks in Bush's popularity. Skepticism about Bush's case for war have grown, and it grows increasingly obvious that we haven't won anything yet and are facing, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, a persistently "untidy" situation in Iraq. On the eve of the war, Bush's support was remarkably weak. His approval ratings, after zooming in the wake of 9/11, had settled back into the mid-50s--where they were before 9/11, when Bush was widely perceived to be floundering. Majorities of Americans took contradictory positions, both in support of war against Iraq and of working through the United Nations. But once the war started, Bush enjoyed a predictable rally-round-the-flag effect, which was enhanced by the apparent ease of the American-British victory. It's been downhill ever since, and now Bush's approval ratings are settling back down toward the mid-50s--where they were before 9/11 and just before Bush launched the Iraq war. As of now, Bush has gained very little politically by prosecuting the Iraq war, and the trend is a downhill slope. With no WMD in sight, with a scandal percolating about the Bush Administration's misuse of intelligence, and with American soldiers dying with unsettling frequency, it's not hard to see why Dick Morris would declare Bush in free fall.
Another way of looking at Bush's political problems is to ask, "What is holding Bush up?" Certainly not the state of the economy. Bush has weak poll numbers here, suggesting that he could suffer the same fate as his father: winning a war against Iraq but losing because of domestic economic and political considerations. While an economic resurgence would certainly help Bush, it seems unlikely, since his policy prescriptions have little to do with actually improving the economy and everything to do with paying off his core constituencies with tax cuts.
Bush has bet his Presidency on being the War-Against-Terrorism President. Look no further than the Republican plan to hold their nominating convention in close conjunction with the second anniversary of 9/11. The plan is to remind the voters that Bush is a great wartime President.
But is he? Or rather, will he be perceived to be a great wartime President?
The Iraq war is a quagmire that will produce bad news and keep the Bush administration on the defensive indefinitely. Bush may get a bump from occasional good news--the death of Hussein's sons, or maybe, someday, the capture or death of Hussein himself. But the Administration and its supporters are staking too much on the proposition that this would turn the situation around. Indeed, reporter Robert Fisk has argued that the death of Hussein may embolden the opposition to the occupation, since disgruntled Iraqis may conclude that they have little to lose by forcing the Americans out. And make no mistake about it--Iraqis have a good deal to disgruntle them. The persistent sabotage against the power grid and the oil industry is causing relentless suffering and hampering economic recovery, and the Bush Administration has no idea how to solve the problem. There is no reason to believe that attacks on American troops will abate, whether Hussein is dead or alive. The United States clearly does not have an adequate force structure, nor does it have any significant reserves to spare to shore up a deteriorating situation. Equally problematic are administration efforts to recruit other nations to provide troops. The bad news is going to drip drip drip. There is no better in the Iraq situation--there are only varying grades of worse.
Also keep in mind that failed wars produce hard emotions. Bad morale for the troops in Iraq translates into bad morale at home. No one thought they were signing up for an indefinite deployment, whether they're regular army or "one-weekend-a-month" reserves. Look what has been reported about disgruntled soldiers and their families. They represent a largely Republican bloc of voters that is steaming with resentment over the way the Bush administration has been jerking them around. To top it off, the Bush Administration has cut benefits for the troops, prompting a critical editorial in the Army Times. The Army Times!
Will this deplorable treatment of the troops--the same troops we were exhorted to support--push them and their families and friends into the Democratic column? Perhaps not. But might they sit on their hands and cost Bush votes that he could have otherwise put in the bank? It's enough to make Karl Rove shudder. Where does Bush go to make up for voters that fall away from his base? Can he pick them up in the middle of the spectrum? A significant bloc of voters showed a great deal of uneasiness in the run-up to the war, and now that uneasiness is proving justified.
It's also hard to win support when you are under attack for cooking the intelligence books. Apart from the damage that the scandal has done and will continue to do to Bush's credibility and political standing, it prevents the administration from developing a positive message, which is essential for an effective campaign. And the intelligence scandal shows no signs of going away. Congressional investigations--however timid they may be at this stage--promise to produce a regular stream of revelations. The Bush Administration has already proven itself to be singularly inept in responding to a full-fledged public relations crisis. Besides all the finger-pointing, they have piled up such a large number of contradictions in their public statements that almost anything they say will only complicate matters. Tony Blair's deepening political crisis over the weapons of mass destruction intelligence is another factor that will keep the issue alive. Drip drip drip.
It would help if US forces found some actual weapons of mass destruction. But it's not going to happen. The intelligence was faulty: there are no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration's fallback is that Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program. But, as the press is pointing out with a regularity that matches their previous credulity regarding Bush Administration claims, it was not a putative program, but actual threatening weapons that provided the centerpiece of Bush's case for preemptive war. Not finding the weapons by July has caused problems. How will it look in September? At the first of the year? During the Presidential election? It's an ongoing embarrassment. Drip drip drip.
So right now, it's hard to point to anything that is holding Bush up. His hard core Republican right-wing base will continue to support him, as they cling to their own delusions about the existence of WMD. But beyond that, Bush is going to have a very hard time making a case for himself.
What could change the equation?
Another war, perhaps. With this administration, it's certainly not cynical to suggest it. But given the current level of skepticism, it would be a tough sell. Besides, the US military doesn't have the troops for another war.
Perhaps the administration's best hope is another terrorist attack, yielding another rally-round-the-flag effect. But it could also cut against Bush. John Kerry is making the case that Bush has left us exposed, so another attack could also open Bush to further criticism. It's a wild card, and catastrophic events by their nature are hard to predict, as are their political effects. Of course, any President could be helped, or hurt, by some unforeseen event. That possibility doesn't change the fact that, on the fundamentals--not sky-blue speculation about what may or may not happen--Bush is in trouble.
Morris makes a valid point that Bush should forego his August vacation. His control over his own administration is weak enough as it is, but if he leaves town for a month while both the Iraq military situation and the WMD scandal drip drip drip--well, let's just say that by Labor Day it could be rather untidy.
None of this is to suggest that a Bush defeat in 2004 is a done deal. There's no such thing. Bush is dangerous. That much has been proven. But he is also in trouble. That much is becoming increasingly evident. And progressives should be eager to take advantage of his weakness and press an alternate vision for America.
![[Image]](../images/bunny.gif){kind=small}