Is Bush a great politician?

Great Debates
1

The news is full of a rather fabulous run of victories for Bush. Against the odds he won victories in the House on patient’s bill of rights and energy. Regardless of what happens in the Senate and Conference this is excellent news because it means the GOP leadership has maintained control of the House just when a couple of weeks ago it appeared that House GOP moderates were going to be very difficult to rein in.

And all this is after pulling off a huge tax cut, which most assumed would be dead right after the election , despite the fact that most polls didn’t show overwhelming support.

Contrast this with Clinton’s performance in his first couple of years when he had much bigger majorities but still couldn’t get health-care reform passed though it was probably more popular than tax cuts today.

And all this is in the context of a hotly disputed election.

So is Bush a supremely skilled politician, or just a lucky one or is it that the Dems are too inept to stop him?

2

Don’t forget the Senate’s role in all this. Part of the charm of the 2-house system is that it allows members to cast votes on this amendment or that, or even on entire bills, strictly for the sake of building up a voting resume for the next election, without fear that the particular amendment or bill will actually become law. On the particular bills you’ve mentioned, the positions being put forward by the Democratic-controlled Senate on these PR-based votes are in sharp contrast to those passed by the GOP-controlled house.

So don’t be misled by House GOP moderates in conservative-leaning districts, casting conservative-looking votes. If they truly had to consider that these votes were meaningful, many of them would be different.

The “hugeness” of the tax cut is debatable, too, since it doesn’t really kick in for the wealthy until long after the next Presidential election, a point in time no economist can accurately forecast. It wasn’t as hard for people on both sides of the aisle to vote to bribe the electorate as it might appear. Politically, though, it made the economy Bush’s responsibility instead of Clinton’s for the next campaign cycle, and the economy is still stagnating. When the (inevitable) question “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” gets asked in 2004, the answer has a very good chance of being “No”, and the blame will be Bush’s. So I don’t see this as entirely a triumph for the GOP, either.

You suggested in the OP that Bush is an “extremely skilled politician”. Let me ask: Whose “fault” is it that his party lost control of the Senate, and thereby control of the legislative agenda (that is, the stuff that gets enacted, not just voted on by one House)? How could an “extremely skilled politician” have not understood the consequences of his treatment of every person in a minuscule voting margin? His claim to effectiveness lies on his people skills - is that an example?

Let me also ask: Does Bush face the same campaign of personal destruction that faced Clinton, and still does for that matter? Is part of his “luck” simply a greater level of responsibility and simple maturity on the part of his opposition than on Clinton’s?

All that doesn’t even get into how much direction Bush himself gives his administration compared to Cheney, Rove, Rice, and Powell. I don’t see him as being any less a befuddled, manipulated figurehead than Reagan was, except that the real power is held by more responsible (for the most part) people than in Reagan’s administration.

So my short answer is: Lucky. So far.

3

The sample size is too small for an answer. If in four years Bush is still putting on his dumb hick act while somehow getting his entire agenda passed then we can agree that it was all just a brilliant act.

Or he could be putting on his dumb hick act while failing miserably.

I do think that the democrats would be making a huge mistake to assume that Bush is a big idiot. He may in fact be a huge idiot, but acting as though he is would be a big mistake.

4

The answer is probably; Yes. Please remember to put this into the context that 99.99% of all politicians are pond scum or worse. With such a perspective, we might even be able to say that Shrub may well be one of the most sterling examples of a politician to come down the pike in ages.

5

Re:
Senate: I am aware that the Senate will influence the final bills but still until recently it appeared that the GOP leadership was losing control of the House as well. This string of victories means that Bush will get something much closer to his liking than if he had lost major votes in the House. This was the pattern for the tax cut. Bush passed his cut in the House. Then everyone said that the Senate would be much more difficult but in reality the Senate made only minor adjustments.

Taxes: True that the tax cut could be reversed but still it was much bigger than anyone expected when Bush began. At its current level it will severely constrain Democratic spending plans for the next few years. Considering that Bush came into office without any mandate that is a rather amazing achievement.

And I wouldn’t be too sure that it will hurt him in 2004. The economy will be sluggish this year but by the begining of next year the interest rate cuts will kick in and by 2003 the economy should have fully recovered. This is ideal timing-wise for the 2004 campaign.

Jeffords:
Yeah that was a setback. But it was after Bush has put much of his conservative agenda out there and in particular passed his tax cut which is as important as virtually everything else combined. At best the Senate moderate what Bush does. This is where the House victories come in. The Senate can’t just ignore the House but will have to meet it half-way on issues like patients rights. If the House passes more or less what Bush wants that will mean a movement in his direction. Perhaps on issues like ANWR drilling the Senate will prove more rebellious. Let’s see.

Overall I think Bush has done vastly better than anyone would have expected when he took office. I don’t think he ,personally, is a great politician ( the OP was a question). But his team appears to be highly effective.

“Is part of his “luck” simply a greater
level of responsibility and simple maturity on the part of his opposition than on
Clinton’s?”
It’s true that the Dems haven’t been particularly aggressive. But I wonder if this is “maturity” or a lack of guts and political skill. If “maturity” means that you let what many considered a fatally compromised presidency do far above expectations, it seems more like a recipe for political defeat.

It appears to me that the Republicans in 92-94 were a much more effective opposition despite much smaller minorities than the Dems have been.

6

Reasons for W’s political success (vs. Clinton’s) so far IMHO

  1. Better organized, so more useful work has gotten done. E.g., a substantially larger number of appointees have been nominated.

  2. Bush administration is more focused. Recall the distraction over gays in the military (although I think Clinton was correct to implement "don’t ask, don’t tell.)

  3. Bush is more personally involved in legislation than Clinton was. (Although others in the Clinton administration did a fine job of paying attention to legislation.

  4. Bush (and his advisors) seem to be pretty skilled at knowing how to play the political game of give and take.

  5. Bush had experience in getting legislation in a large state without single party control. Clinton’s experience was in a small state controlled by Dems.

  6. Bush seems more comfortable than Clinton in negotiating with the Congress. Note that many of Clinton’s achievements were by executive order. Several of his key appointments were done without Senate approval during a recess, IIRC.

  7. Bush is looking for smaller victories. His bills have been watered down. (E.g., Democratic racists have knocked vouchers out of the education bill.) OTOH Clinton was seeking too big a change with “HillaryCare.”

7

You thinking of running for office, december? :wink:
How on earth is opposition to vouchers ‘racist’? Or did I read you wrong. I haven’t seen a lot of support for vouchers in the minority community. At least not here, where I live.
And no, Bush isn’t a great politician. He’s not really fooling anyone.
Peace,
mangeorge

8

I think you’re forgetting about the millions of Republicans nationwide who embraced him as the best and brightest conservative of their generation. If George is no great shakes, what does that say about them and their “ideology” ? Now there’s a group that really WANTS to be fooled; so much so that even young George can do it !

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mangeorge *
**

I have read that according to surveys, the majority of inner city Blacks support vouchers. That’s a natural position for them to take, since the current education system is leaving millions of inner city children illiterate.

I confess to being intentionally provocative.

10

Bush is not a particularly good politician. He is, however, a very skilled President. Politics to me is selling oneself to large crowds and pissing off as few people as possible(Clinton and Reagen were great).

Bush pisses off many people and is bumbling in front of large crowds unless the speech is pre-written. I don’t actually think silled public speaking is critical is essential for being a good President, but it is for being a great politician.

So no, fortunately, he is not a good politician.

11

CyberPundit, looks like we agree on the “too early to tell” part - the rest is just our usual GD hot air.

You mentioned that the tax cut will “severely constrain Democratic spending” - pardon me, your GOP slip is showing. Won’t it constrain Republican spending on their own boondoggles, too, such as Bush’s faith-based missile defense system?

I do have a comment on this, though:

I think that’s true only if you see the duty of an opposition party as being simply oppositionist. It’s not. You have to be for a particular philosophy and agenda, and be willing to work with others on the necessary compromises, in order to accomplish the job the voters hire you to do. What the Gingrich GOP did was simply obstruct every Democratic initiative, appeal to the lowest denominator in stirring up oppositionism among their public by painting the Democrats as demons, and try to ram their own agenda through by simply getting the majority. That isn’t what responsible governing is about, and it’s heartening to see their tactics not being returned, as illustrated by the smallness of the number of examples the Fox News types have available to complain about.

12

ElvisLIves,
LOL. I am not a Republican by a long way.

Re: NMD, I don’t think the Dems have been really forthright in opposing it, I am not sure what their position is. They seem to support more Defence spending in general. Overall counting defence and domestic spending togethere they probably want more spending than the GOP so the tax cut definitely constrains them more.

“I think that’s true only if you see the duty of an opposition party as being simply oppositionist”
Sheesh all the Dems here seem so highminded.:wink:

I think the duty of the opposition party among other things involves successfully opposing policies to which they are philosophically opposed . The GOP did that with extraordinary success with health-care reform but the Dems failed completely with tax cuts.

Compromise is perfectly fine but Bush didn’t compromise on tax cuts he just rolled over the Dems to the detriment of the causes they believe in.

On thinking things through I am probably being overly influenced by just tax cuts and health-care. If Bush had failed with tax cuts I don’t I would have considered him that successful. Similarly if Clinton had got health-care passed his first two years would have rightly been considered a success. Still the bills are among the 3 or 4 most important pieces of legislation of the last decade so it’s reasonable to focus on them.

While the public wanted some tax cuts the polls seem to indicate that they wanted smaller tax cuts with less for the top 1% and more left over for paying down the debt and spending. So essentially public opinion was somewhat closer to the Dems but Bush got his way despite wafer-thin majorities. You have to admit that looks like either extraordinary skill on Bush’s part or ineptness on the Dems’ part.

13

I wouldn’t be too sure of that…there are STILL people who think Reagan was a great president, despite the fact that he was frighteningly out of touch, and I’d be willing to lay odds that HE was not the one running the government.

14

Funny how commonsensical, delegating managers like Eisenhower, Reagan, and George W. have been accused of being “frighteningly” out of touch, whereas (often-overintellectualized) micromanagers like Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton have been lauded despite the diplomatic and military disasters that occurred during their watch.

15

The phrase “inept Democrats”, redundant though it is on a historical basis, is premature in describing the opposition’s failures in countering Bush policies. The Dems have had enormous difficulty in recent times in pushing through their programs even when they had small legislative majorities, but defense is easier to play than offense. Some of Bush’s early wins, such as on ANWR drilling and patient rights legislation are going to be defeated or watered down further in the Senate (the fate of Arctic refuge drilling will depend in part on what gas prices are doing at the time).

Health care federalization, especially in the secretive and ineffective way the Clintons pushed it, was a much tougher sell than the tax cut. Bush shouldn’t get credit for being a political genius for getting tax relief passed; rather he’s backed himself into a corner by kissing that money goodbye.
With the surplus evaporating and pork spending eating into what’s left, there won’t be a lot of money left for either missile defense or big new Demo spending programs. And we’ll be paying out huge sums in interest indefinitely to cover money borrowed to finance deficit spending, thanks to the emphasis on the tax cut rather than deficit reduction. So future bipartisan quarrels will be over a dramatically shrinking pie.

If there’s some coherent Democratic plan for the nation gestating out there, I haven’t heard of it. Too many party adherents are still stuck in their Bush-is-a-dumb-figurehead-without-a-mandate-we-wuz-robbed-of-the-election mode, and their leaders are more worried about superficially imitating middle to right-wing Republican behavior to win elections, than fighting for principles the party has supposedly always stood for (I’m still reeling from the recent party conclave, featuring Joe the Faux Conservative Lieberman yammering yet again about the importance of Standing Up To Hollywood, and Chris Dodd wondering earnestly why Demos don’t have support from a majority of gun owners).

So Demos, take heart. The GOPs aren’t as well-organized as they look.
And GOPs, be optimistic. It is hard to overestimate the ineptitude of the Democratic Party.

P.S. If you act like you have a mandate, then you’ve got one. And winning an election is the traditional grounds for having a mandate. If Bush in his own mind has a mandate, then whining about the lack of one isn’t going to stop him.

16

Oh great, another partisan brawl.

Bush has done much better than I (a liberal) thought he would. This doesn’t (IMO) make him great. He is exceeding some rather dismal expectations.

On the other hand, he has managed to screw up internationally much worse than I expected. Our allies aren’t thrilled with Kyoto or Missle Defense. His “we are the USA, we’ll do what we want” attitude is offensive. His “hands off” approach to the MidEast may not have hurt, but certainly hasn’t helped that explosive (and complex, difficult, etc) situation (I’m not sure anything he could have done would have made things better or worse). And lets not even start on China (the spy plane thing was OK - not great - but definately OK, it was the comments on Taiwan that made me wonder if the man had any brains).

So, if great politician means great statesman, my take would be no, but it is far to early to tell.

(And I think Eisenhower was a great politician and a great statesman - as was Nixon (except for that little Watergate thing), so I am capable of giving a Republican a little credit. I also voted for Reagan, and Elder Bush the first time, but not the second.)

17

I should clarify that I meant “great politician” purely in the tactical sense of getting his policies implemented not in the sense of whether his policies are good or bad. Perhaps “effective” would be a better adjective.

I don’t necessarily think Bush is all that effective a politician. But he has the good sense to listen to shrewd operatives like Karl Rove who are smarter than he is. He appears to be quite good at face-to-face meetings and rather skilled at twisting the arms of GOP moderates who always seem to be threatening to rebel but never do anything ( with the exception of Jeffords). And then he has been helped by what seems to be a very confused opposition.

OTOH perhaps the Dems have a deeper and more subtle plan. Perhaps they decided to give way on the tax cut because it would then force Bush to tackle issues which would be on their turf and like Jackmanni said not leave enough money for popular programmes. If the recovery is relatively slow and Bush has to dip in the SS trust fund and/or is unable to fund popular spending programmes then it is true that his tax cut could be a very Pyrrhic victory.

But if that was the Dem plan then it was very risky because chances are that the economy will recover some time next year and Bush will try to claim that his tax cuts were responsible.

Overall my guess is that there was no deep plan and the Dems have been just incompetent.

18

I’m not trying to start anything. Read Sleepwalking Through History and Landslide: the Unmaking of the President 1984-1988 by Jane Mayer & Don McManus (I’m too lazy to look up the author of the first book). Basically, his managing style was to leave everything to someone else.

That doesn’t scare you? That the president is so out of touch that basically foreign policy is being run by a zealot marine? Or that a president leaves everything to his UNELECTED aids? He had no understanding of basic laws?

19

I’ve read a book and a long article by Jane Mayer, and she often twisted facts to support her opinion.

To evaluate Reagan directly, try reading, “Reagan in his Own Hand.” I guarantee that you will be shocked at his intelligence and breadth of knowledge.

20

CyberPundit sez:

and later misspells “programs” as “programmes”.
OK, guess I shoulda said “Pardon me, your Canadian Alliance / Tory slip is showing.”

How ya doin’, Sam?