archived: 21 - 27 Aug, 2005         Back                 Next

                        ARE WE THERE YET? -- WASHINGTON 

Almost!  The ides of August have been unkind to Bush; there has been another appreciable loss in his public support.   

This chart reflects TPJ’s collection of public polling since the beginning of the year.

Here are the major points:   

1. Bush’s average approval has dropped below 45% for the first time this year.
2. Bush’s average disapproval rating has topped 50% for the first time this year.
3. Bush’s monthly average approval rating has dropped in every consecutive month; save July.

TPJ will be closely watching the polls next week.  Will Sheehan’s vigil, supported by more than 100,000 demonstrators nationwide, extract a further toll?   

For rank and file Democrats, the polling trends focus importance on the national peace march on September 24 in Washington.  If the March garners a crowd in equal to or in excess of those of the Vietnam era (100,000 to 150,000), the Washington march could be just the impetus that sends Bush’s approval ratings to 40%.  

                        WHERE ARE THE DEMS? 

The question is TPJ’s mantra.  It signifies the frustration that many Democrats feel; what does our Party stand for, why are we not fighting Bush and the radical religious right more directly on the issues. 

David Ignatius authored a piece in the Washington Post Friday that expresses the thoughts of many Democrats: 

This should be the Democrats' moment: The Bush administration is caught in an increasingly unpopular war; its plan to revamp Social Security is fading into oblivion; its deputy chief of staff is facing a grand jury probe. Though the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, they seem to be suffering from political and intellectual exhaustion. They are better at slash-and-burn campaigning than governing.

So where are the Democrats amid this GOP disarray? Frankly, they are nowhere. They are failing utterly in the role of an opposition party, which is to provide a coherent alternative account of how the nation might solve its problems. Rather than lead a responsible examination of America's strategy for Iraq, they have handed off the debate to a distraught mother who is grieving for her lost son. Rather than address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, they have decided to play politics and let President Bush squirm on the hook of his unpopular plan to create private Social Security accounts.

Because they lack coherent plans for how to govern the country, the Democrats have become captive of the most shrill voices in the party, who seem motivated these days mainly by visceral dislike of George W. Bush. Sorry, folks, but loathing is not a strategy -- especially when much of the country finds the object of your loathing a likable guy.

The Democrats' problem is partly a lack of strong leadership. Its main spokesman on foreign policy has become Sen. Joseph Biden, a man who -- how to put this politely? -- seems more impressed with the force of his own intellect than an objective evaluation would warrant. Listening to Biden, you sense how hungry he is to be president, but you have little idea what he would do, other than talk . . . and talk.

The same failing is evident among Democratic spokesmen on economic issues. Name a tough problem -- such as energy independence or reform of Medicare and Social Security -- and the Democrats are ducking the hard choices. That may be understandable as a short-term political strategy: Why screw up your chances in the 2006 congressional elections by telling people they must make sacrifices? But this approach keeps the Democrats part of politics-as-usual, a game the GOP plays better.

Howard Dean is a breath of air as chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- but unfortunately a lot of it is hot air. Dean is admirably combative, and in that he reflects a party that is tired of being mauled by Karl Rove's divisive campaigning. – Washington Post (emphasis added) 

Is Ignatius’ condemnation correct? 

TPJ has noted on multiple occasions that Congressional Democrats have purposefully avoided advocating an alternative Social Security plan.  The Democrats’ strategy is founded on Bush’s inability to “sell” privatization to the American public.  Democrats feared that by tabling an alternative plan, Bush and the Republicans would make the Democrats plan the issue rather than singularly focus Americans on Bush’s ultimate objective to destroy Social Security.  Ultimately, public support for privatization has failed as demonstrated by every major public poll released over the past year. 

Democrats have not articulated an exit strategy for Iraq and most Congressional Democrats have not advocated an immediate withdrawal of troops.  American citizens have led the fight to withdraw.  A majority of Americans now disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq, and the numbers appear to be growing each month.   

Can it be that Congressional Democrats have a very simple strategy – stand back and let the Republicans continue to self-destruct?  The mid-term elections are still some fifteen months away; much too early to initiate the public aspects of the campaign.  The question has to be asked; why engage Bush and the Republicans now as support for their Party is falling.  Stated conversely, would it be more effective to engage Republicans with Democratic proposals next Fall? 

Congressional Democrats can make an effective case for waiting.  Contrary to Ignatius’ assertions, it is not a matter of “loathing” Bush, it is a matter of keeping the public absolutely focused on the fact that neoconservative foreign policy and domestic policy driven by the radical religious right is an abject failure.  Bush, as President, exemplifies both groups without reservation.  The time will come when Democrats must table alternatives representing their policy vision, but only after Americans have had an unfettered view of the results of radical Republican rule. 

Democrats are also taking the Republican “trump card” out of the election.  Bush at 40% approval will not be a real factor in helping retain Republican majorities in the Senate and House.  A public convinced of Bush’s policy failures may instead be a millstone around the neck of Congressional Republicans.   

Bush’s fall, in part, comes from the fact that his image has become like that of a boxer fighting his own shadow rather than the Democrats.  The most recent example; Bush “boxing” the image of one determined mother – Cindy Sheehan.   

Ignatius states a point, but misses its critical mass.  Even if the Democrats tabled superior policy initiatives now, Congressional Democrats have absolutely no chance of enacting legislation in the face of Republican Congressional majorities and a Republican President. 

While Ignatius apparently disdains Democrats playing “election politics,” is that not precisely what Democrats must do?  The radical Republicans will not waiver in their course; if foreign and domestic policy is to be changed Democrats have to win Congressional majorities in 2006; or at least in one Chamber to keep the Republican onslaught at bay.  Winning either chamber is a tall order. 

Finally, if Democrats tabled policy alternatives now, would it be throwing a drowning Republican Party a life preserver by affording Republicans an opportunity to attack the Democratic Party agenda?  As Ignatius adroitly notes, attack is what Republicans do best.  

This alternative view to Ignatius’ critique could simply represent an attempt to find some logical meaning in a Democratic Party that is bankrupt of ideas and vision.  However, rank and file Democrats must consider and allow for the possibility that Congressional Democrats have fashioned a strategy that is working. 

NEXT- MICHAEL CARMICHAEL

Last Update: 03/23/2006