Extent of Support for and Opposition to Bush

Great Debates
1

First off, please excuse me if this is on the wrong board as its more a question for my enlightenment then a great debate topic. I’ve put it here though as its political and politics always seem to bounce back here anyway.

What I am curious about is two things, the solidity of American support for the Bush agenda, and any opposition to it from within the Republican party.

Now I am aware that Bush polls well and seems to be supported by most of the American population. I am also aware that there is a natural tendency for people to rally to their leaders in threatening times, be the threat real or otherwise. What I dont know is how widely radical rightwing views have become accepted by the average man in the US. In other words how deep is the support for what seem from my foreigner perspective lunatic ideas like the retreat from multi-lateralism, tax cuts coupled with gargantuan deficits, and a pre-emptive war doctrine? If the support is deeply ingrained then its a long term problem that goes beyond this administration and doesnt end with Bush.

Which brings me to my second question. I read somewhere recently that there is a feeling by some within the Republican party that it has been hijacked by its extremist wing. To what extent is this true, and to what extent has the Bush agenda become ‘natural’ for the republicans? Is there much or any meaningful opposition to Bush within the party? The reason I am asking is because I am trying to get a feel for whether the current adminstration is a rogue aberration or whether its just the way things are going to be from now on.

2

I’ll take an uneducated stab at it…

First, you have to recognize that the political norm in much of the world is what would be considered ‘leftist’ here. So ‘radical rightwing’ is merely rightwing here. ‘Centrist’ in France would probably equate to ‘Far-Left Socialist’ here. Your ‘lunatic ideas’ are pretty darn popular over here. (Nice way of slanting your oh! so innocent question, though.)

The retreat from what some call ‘multilateralism’, and others call ‘needless kowtowing’, is more of a ‘Neocon’ issue than a traditional Right/Left issue. Neoconservative political philosophy is a topic unto itself, but is a pretty odd blend of traditionally Right and Left-wing views. In short, Neocons believe that America has overwhelming strength, and should use whenever neccesary. Also, they believe that American foreign policy is for Americans to decide; Not some group of foreigners with oft-diverging interests.

Tax cuts are to stimulate the economy, which was hurting from the collapse of the artificial ‘New Economy’ of the 90’s. Economy goes up, tax revenues go up, deficits go down.

‘Preemptive war doctrine’ feeds off of the sovreignty espoused above. America needs to do what is best for America. If that means attacking a nation, before said nation has a chance to act against America, so be it. There is no need to take a punch in the face before acting.

**

Yes, there is opposition, but not in the way you imply. There are many Republicans who are unhappy with GWs stance on several issues. GW wants greater immigration from Mexico, coupled with various illegal alien amnesty programs and whatnot. Not the most popular idea among some Republican circles. Others are not thrilled with his increased spending, especially the increases in foreign aid and other non-defense increases.

But there isn’t a snowballs chance in hell that there will be a major split in the GOP, with the coming elections and all. Some Republicans may not like GW, but the alternative is a Democrat, an idea no Republican likes.

3

Eolbo:

You have to also understand that any sense of the citizens of the world all holding hands and singing Cumbayah kinda went out the window on Sept 11, 2001. Many folks on the Democractic side of the aisle have rethought their belief in internationalism. Not that it’s been disavowed, but it has been put in question. All of the (serious) Democratic presidential contenders (except Dean) supported the Iraq war, for example. As did even HR Clinton (nicknamed “artillary Hillary” recently by some on the left).

Brutus is right, though, that GWB is clearly the leader of the Republican party and will have no significant internal Republican opposition in running for president in '04.

4

While Bush is not going to have opposition from the Republican Party, it will be interesting to see how much of the Christian Conservative base he can hang on to. Apparently, there is some discontent with his stance on afirmative action and his perceived failure (so far) to take a hard-line stance against homosexual rights. Whether or not these issues (a) actually become significant and (b) prompt these voters to head for Buchanan remains to be seen.

5

As Brutus agreed, there is a significant gulf between what is considered “centrist” or the “norm” in the US compared to all of its NATO allies. For the gulf to narrow, either all of the others must take a step towards the US position or the US must start listening to its allies throughout the rest of the world. One can only hope that such a state of affairs is not how it shall be for ever more.

6

And you might want to keep in mind that dozens of nitwits call in to American radio shows - left and right - who are completely removed from the political process.

The lack of political activity by so many of my countryfolk, I believe, is a clue that they are fat and happy and enjoying cable TV. They don’t really support Bush or his opposition. They just go on their merry way and consider politics on more show.

7

Given the recent advances made in the gay-rights arena (Supreme Court overturns Texas law, Canada approves same-sex marriages, WalMart extends benefits to same sex partners, and the impending decision whereby Massachusetts is expected to recognize same-sex marriage), it will be interesting to see just how far Bush is willing to go with his views. He’s on record as saying that marriage is for man/woman couples only. Will that be enough for the social conservatives? Will it be too much for the social liberal/libertarian wing of the Republicans?

8

Who are the “religious right” going to vote for, if not for Bush? A Democrat? I don’t think so. As for gay “rgihts”, show me the Democratic candidate who supports marriage for gays (actual Democratic nominee, not some fringe candidate). Bush would be nuts to come out in support of gay marriage when even the Democrats shy away from it. And I’m speaking on pure pragmatic terms here, not idealogical terms. The issue of “gay rights” gets a lot of press, but I’d be surprised if it was on the top 10 list of any significant portion of the US population. If it is, it would be in the negative.

9

The issue raised was not whether Democrats support gay-marriage. The issue raised was whether Bush’s attempt to diplomatically oppose gay-marriage, instead of outright condemnation of homosexuality will alienate his religious supporters. I doubt it will, but I saw the issue raised on NBC this morning, so I brought it up.

There is always Buchanan, if you are fiercely anti-gay, and you don’t think Bush is doing enough about it.

10

Howard Dean, D-Vermont, signed the legislation permitting civil unions for homosexual couples in Vermont. Last I read, he was an actual candidate for President and had garnered some support vs. being a “fringe candidate.”

11

The current administration’s course is largely a continuation of the policies of Ronald Reagan, so in that sense it’s not a “rogue abberation.” On the other hand, this extremist/neo-conservative political ideaology is still relatively young, so it’s hard to tell whether or not it will endure, or will be looked back later as an abberation; you could argue that the more moderate administrations of 1999-2000 (Bush Sr. and Clinton) was an endorsement for more moderation and less right-wing zeal.

As for the issue of voters, there will always be a clique of folks who will always vote Democrat/Republican, regardless of the circumstances. Both parties tend to take those folks for granted, because – as John Mace demonstrated – they’re not going to “jump ship” and vote for the other guy. What the candidates are always after are the swing voters, the undecided folks in the middle, and attracting those folks require politicians to mask themselves as moderates. George W. Bush was able to sell himself as a moderate in the 2000 Presidential Election; it’ll be interesting to see whether he can pull the same stunt in 2004, now that his non-moderate track record is available for public scrutiny.

12

True. If he gets the nomination, I’d love to see how he answers the question: “Do you support the right of gays to marry?” in a debate. If he answers yes, I suspect he’ll get slaughtered. As RJUNG correctly pointed out, it’s that critical center that the candidates must court.

13

Last October, at a voter registration drive at a gay bar here in Denver, Dr. Dean made a short speech. Basically he said that if he were elected president gays nationwide would have the same rights as those in Vermont.

Personaly, I think it would be a mistake for him to add that plank to his platform. It surely would antagonize many potential voters. But I would like to see him work on it after he gets elected. He is probably the only one who would.

Bob

14

Maybe Dean should just make up some name - say run as a “compassionate conservative” or somesuch mythical beast. And then if elected, he can do whatever the hell he wants.

15

Yes, Bush’s lukewarm opposition to AA in the Michigan case, the large amounts of money he threw at education, the huge expansion of Medicare he’s pushing, his consideration of amnesty for illegal immigrants, his devotion to the notion of big government, and his protectionist steel tariffs all just scream “right-wing extremist”. Sorry, but Bush is a moderate by American standards. He’s a conservative moderate to be sure, but he’s hardly a member of the far-right. His foreign policy is conservative, sure, but it garnered a lot of democratic support. About the only area where he’s really pushed a conservative agenda is in the tax realm.

Bush will peg himself as a moderate in the '04 elections, and people will buy it, because it’s an accurate portrayal. In fact, one of the biggest complaints I’ve seen coming from Dems is that he’s stealing all their best material. He’s co-opted education, and he’s co-opted Medicare. He’s not as avidly anti-AA as democratic contenders would like, which keeps them from labeling him as racist. About the only token Democratic slam left is the “anti-gay” moniker, but even on that front Bush has been too ambivalent for their liking.

And in fact, this is the biggest complaint made by conservatives - Bush is drifting too far left. He sees the Dems becoming more left-wing, and is trying to capture the lion’s share of moderates by embracing traditionally left-wing causes. As many conservatives see it, what’s the point of holding the presidency and both houses if you’re not going to bother pushing conservative ideas? That’s the source of any rift in the Republican party, but it’s a fairly small rift, to be sure.
Jeff

16

No candidate could ever get away with that. The voting public is much too smart.

:smiley:

Bob

17

I see on preview that Howard Dean is already mentioned. Don’t forget that even if Dean goes down, every candidate is now going to have to take a position on that issue.

Which, I suspect, is why we’re talking about gay marriages right now. A short while back elucidator and I both tumbled to the same–so-far unprovable–conclusion that the Republicans are attempting to make gay marriage an issue in this election cycle in order to polarize the public along lines other than that of starting a war on false premises, failing to revive the economy, and coddling the wealthiest segment of the population.

Others, will see the issue quite differently, but I’m pretty sure that someday someone is gonna pin this move on Marc Racicot and make it stick.

18

I might point out that gay civil unions are not the same thing as gay marriage. Dean has not come out unambigously for gay marriage, he has only called for the second-class, back of the bus status of civil unions.

And I doubt the Republicans are the ones behind all the press gay marriage is getting lately. How did Karl Rove blackmail the Canadian Supreme Court into hearing the gay marriage case? Did Rove pressure the US Supreme Court to hear the sodomy case, and somehow arrange for them to come out FOR sodomy rather than against it? All in order to give the religious right a red meat issue? The mind boggles.

Somehow it makes more sense to me that Karl Rove would rather take all this gay stuff off the table. The RR is going to vote for Bush no matter what. Rove isn’t positioning Bush as a fire-breathing conservative, Bush is being positioned as a moderate conservative. No one is going to change their mind and vote for Bush because he’s finally bashing gays. But there are some (not huge numbers perhaps, but remember 2000?) who might vote against him for gay bashing.

19

Dean hasn’t actually come out in favor of gay marriage but instead takes the offensive attacking DOMA and asking why Bush doesn’t stand for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples. I’m assuming that means he is for civil unions without calling it marriage. Dean on the Issues.

20

An unprovable assertion by a Bush-basher? That can’t possibly be…

If only those evil Pubs would act the saintly Dems, like Kerry, who voted for the war and now are using it as political issue to “polarize” the public.