Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Partisanship under Bush

Bill Galston, about whom I have said nice things here and here, asserts that "Bush is the most partisan president in modern American history." His argument is that Bush always moves to consolidate his base rather than conciliate the opposition:

In Galston’s view, Bush bears principal responsibility for that condition, saying that on three occasions he passed up opportunities to govern from the center and work more constructively with the Democrats and instead chose a path designed to mobilize conservatives. The first came after the disputed election of 2000, in the early days of Bush’s new administration. The second came after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Bush’s approval rating rose to 90 percent. The third came after the hard-fought and polarizing election last year.

"While White House aides can provide familiar talking points on gestures of cooperation across party lines, the fact of the matter is on all three occasions, the principal thrust of Bush’s policies was toward polarization rather than conciliation," Galston said. "We are now living in the shadow of nearly five years in which that has been the dominant political message coming out of the White House."

Considering the vitiol and venom coming from many in the Democratic Party--which began almost the moment Bush took office, if not before--it’s hard to fault Bush for attending to his base, rather than risking alienating it in the vain hope of winning over the Kossacks. If moderates like Galston could reassert control over their party, which I think is nearly impossible, there would be something to be gained by reaching out more frequently across party lines.

In any event, to heap all the blame on the President for the current state of partisan bickering borders on the ridiculous. Galston is more measured and makes more sense here:

"Unlike other political scientists," Galston noted, "my recent work has led me to conclude that political polarization has increased sharply over the past forty years. This phenomenon represents, not so much a shifting pattern of convictions in the population as a whole, but rather a changing distribution of those convictions between the political parties and among states and regions."

This line of argument suggests that our situation is part of a longer-term trend, not a product of the actions of one administration, which strikes me as more correct.

Discussions - 2 Comments

It is things like this that are killing the DNC: "In other words, the DLC argues that Democrats must show they are willing to indiscriminately bomb, kill and maim people in order to win elections, even though the public now fully opposes what we’re doing in Iraq."

If that is their view of what America is doing in Iraq then it is hardly surprising that they are not winning over many moderates. Inflamatory rhetoric such as that only speaks to the moonbat wing of the party. The wing of the party that is losing them elections.

Mr. Galston ought to reread some history of FDR and his political enemies in the 1930s to see what partisanship truly was. Roosevelt was reviled by a hard corfe of reactionaries and conservatives -- "That Man in the White House!" In fact, in reading some of the comments that Republicans made toward FDR reminds me of the same kind of vituperation that energes from Democratic Underground, Daily Kos and the Democratic National Committee. Like "Martin, Barton and Fish" of the GOP oppositione, Bush’s opponents have become rabid in the fever swamps of their own hatred of the president.

Finally, let’s remember that partissanship and a polarizing leader are not necessarily bad things. FDR was polarizing, as were Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, but all three are rated as great and effective presidents. And Mr. Galston’s president, Bill Clinton, boasted approval ratings in the 50s and 60s in his second term and accomplished nothing. I prefer partisanship and a polarizing leader who has convictions and a record of accomplishments.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2005/09/partisanship-under-bush.php on line 444

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2005/09/partisanship-under-bush.php on line 444