Political Capital

by digby

Ezra wonders why war president Bush killed off compassionate conservative president Bush.

I’ve never been entirely convinced by the explanations for why that happened. Bush’s record in Texas and his rhetoric on the campaign trail never suggested the sort of leader that would emerge. September 11 changed him, but it’s not precisely clear why it enabled such an abandonment of the domestic realm. I will, in the interest of debate, offer this thesis, which I find interesting if not convincing. I’ve adapted it from something Grover Norquist said at the Prospect breakfast: He argued that the high poll numbers of 9-11 straitjacketed the administration, leaving them terrified of downward drift. So in their efforts to retain 80 percent approval ratings, they refused to engage in the sort of divisive, unpopular fights needed to actualize their agenda. They just went with the interest groups as the path of least resistance. And by the time they were ready for domestic policies again, they couldn’t afford to split the coalition. Compassionate conservatism died because Bush became popular and wasn’t willing to sacrifice that support for issues beneath War and Peace.

I would argue that there never was a “compassionate conservative” Bush, but a political slogan that was adopted when the face of the party was the slavering beasts of the Gingrich years who shut down the government and impeached a popular president against the will of the people. The game plan was to run Bush as a Republican Clinton without the woody.

And to the extent that they actually believed any of their campaign blather about “soft bigotry of low expectations” and prescription drug coverage, it was only to massage certain constituencies they needed to cobble together a majority — which they didn’t actually manage to do in 2000. Karl was just buying votes like any smart pol does.

Bush, however, always wanted to be a “war president” and knew exactly what he wanted to do with all that political capital:

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade … if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

What we didn’t realize is that so much of his agenda had to do with expanding executive power and invading Iraq. Indeed, he probably didn’t realize it either, but he’s the type of personality who undoubtedly found those two agenda items very enticing.

They failed on social security, the big ticket domestic item of the second term, but the reason was that they always overestimated the amount of political capital a “war president” who only won a second term by 51% of the vote actually has. He had plenty of juice after 9/11 but he used it all up on Iraq — and when the WMD didn’t show, most of that evaporated over time.

But the tax cuts, the indiscriminate deregulation, the expansion of executive power (not only through the programs like the illegal wiretapping but through the passage of the Patriot Act as well) can only be considered great successes by the standard he set forth. The reason his “compassionate conservative” agenda wasn’t part of that package is because it was just an campaign ploy to begin with. After 9/11 they made the calculation that he could win by running solely on national security with a smattering of homo-hating. And he did.

.