The political genius of George W. Bush

[Guest guest]

The political genius of George W. BushDemocrats have much to weigh as they look

to 2008

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican or an independent,

it is hard not to look at President Bush's re-election victory last week and

conclude that he is probably one of the three or four most talented politicians

of the last half of a century.

 

Why do I write that? Think about it. In 10 short years, George Walker Bush has

won not just one but three high-profile political races that most able

politicians would have lost.

 

In 1994, with no real previous political experience, he beat a popular incumbent

governor in the nation's second most populous state. Six years later, he beat a

sitting vice president during a time of peace and prosperity. And last week,

with a mediocre economy, an unpopular war and a well-funded and unified

opposition, he not only won his race but also helped increase Republican

majorities in the House and Senate.

Rove not the only reason

Many people will point out that Bush has enjoyed advantages that most people

never dream of -- inherited wealth, a famous family name, unbelievable

connections and multiple second chances. But while those are legitimate

critiques, the reality is that FDR's sons never won the presidency; there never

was a David Eisenhower administration; and Ronald Reagan's kids have never

inspired much political fear.

 

Others will write that Karl Rove deserves much or all of the credit. But do you

really believe that you can beat former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, Vice President

Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry just by being a " puppet " ? Sure, Rove helps -- as all

savvy advisers do. Remember Dick Morris, Lee Atwater and Michael Deaver?

 

Politics is as much about the person as it is about the process. It is a tough,

intense game, and the candidate has to be up to the fight. If not, he will

eventually fail -- if not against Richards, then against Gore; if not against

Gore, then against Kerry.

Five Bush qualities

Instead of just crediting his family name or Rove, Bush's extraordinary

political success is probably owed to at least five key things: (1) great

political fundamentals, including an ability and willingness to raise large sums

of money; (2) an ability to propose a clear, coherent and easily understandable

policy agenda (e.g., " compassionate conservatism " ); (3) an ability to attract,

manage and retain a strong team of advisers (e.g., Rove, Ken Mehlman, Ed

Gillespie, Karen Hughes, Matthew Dowd and others); (4) a willingness to go for

the jugular -- repeatedly and without remorse (e.g., the " flip-flopper " label,

gay marriage issue, South Carolina primary in 2000); and perhaps most important

(5) a willingness to take a risk repeatedly (e.g., targeting Democratic Senate

Minority Leader Tom Daschle for defeat, offering a Social Security overhaul plan

proposal, relying and counting on an evangelical turnout plan).

 

I write all of this not to rubber-stamp the president's political tactics or

policies, but to say that if you are a serious observer of politics, it is worth

your time recognizing a rare political talent when it is in your midst. Indeed,

such talents do not come along very often -- Bill Clinton in 1992, 1996 and

again in 1998-99; Reagan -- not just from 1980-88 but also from 1976-80 (his

years in the wilderness between presidential campaigns); JFK as a candidate

during his 1960 campaign; and LBJ for his legislative successes from 1963-66.

The bigger picture

While Bush's re-election victory was a significant one, perhaps just as

noteworthy is the reality that his second-term presidency may ultimately emerge

as the most consequential four years since LBJ's only full term 40 years ago.

 

Given the big issues in front of him, his significant " political capital " (as he

puts it), his proven ability to get legislation through Congress and now his

increased Republican strength in the House and Senate, the president has an

opportunity to make some of the most significant -- some would say radical and

unjust -- policy changes in the last four decades.

 

From Social Security, the Supreme Court and taxes to education, the environment

and the United Nations, Bush may make significant departures from established

U.S. policy during the next four years -- and thus, absent illness, scandal or

major surprise, his second term may one day be regarded as the most

consequential presidency in two generations.

Democrats and policy

Before criticizing the Democrats or Kerry too strongly, it is worth remembering

that if out of the 115 million-plus voters nationwide, some 70,000 had switched

sides in Ohio last week, we would be trumpeting President Kerry instead of

President Bush. We would be discussing the groundbreaking miracle of a Catholic,

a senator and a Northeastern liberal winning the presidency against a talented

and well-funded wartime commander. But as my father taught me long ago, life is

a game of inches, and so once again Bush won a difficult presidential election.

 

In analyzing the 2004 Democratic effort, many political observers will focus on

" MMC " : the messenger, the message and the campaign. Many of those critiques are

likely to be right on. Kerry could have been a more charismatic and enjoyable

candidate; Democrats should have had a clearer policy message -- a brand so to

speak; and the campaign's television ads and get-out-the-vote effort could have

been better.

 

But one critique that you may not hear is that the next Democratic candidate

needs to love policy more. What do I mean? I mean that one of Kerry's real

weaknesses may ultimately have been that he did not seem to love policy broadly

and know what he wanted to do -- separate and apart from the political strains

of the moment or the polls. And so when he discussed creating jobs, fixing the

situation in Iraq or helping kids improve their education, the talk sounded to

undecided or uninspired voters like just that -- talk. It did not sound concrete

and real to many voters (including more than 80 million people who were eligible

to vote but did not cast a ballot for Bush, Kerry or anyone else last week).

 

Part of that may be because while senators create new programs and guidelines,

they do not implement them. They often do not see firsthand the jobs being

created or destroyed, the list of parks to be cleaned up across a state or the

number of new courses the state universities will offer this year. But governors

do see such things.

 

Now that does not mean that any governor is automatically better than any

senator as a presidential candidate. But it does mean that the most effective

presidential candidates love policy, think deeply and broadly about it, and can

personalize it as well. So as the Democrats head into 2008, they would do well

to find not only a politically talented candidate or a candidate who just

happens to go to church, but a policy-talented candidate whose ideas as well as

her or his image and manner will connect with voters.

 

George W. Bush, Clinton and Reagan all did that.

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/watson.policy/index.html

 

 

 

http://www.gatrill.com/christmas.html

http://pets.care2.com/

 

" The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. " --

Plato