Lessons from modern political history on the importance of protecting an image of competence.
Lessons from modern political history on the importance of protecting an image of competence
I n 2004, George W. Bush was the first Republican to win the popular vote outright in a generation. He earned 50.7 percent, for just 286 Electoral College votes. It was a narrow but convincing win in a divided electorate. He was particularly helped by the fact that eleven states held ballot referenda on same-sex marriage. Despite some fringe lunatics speculating about voting machines, it was a clean, undisputed victory. Whereas four years earlier people blamed the Supreme Court or poorly designed ballots in Florida, this time, observers began conceding that Bush political strategist Karl Rove was right to call America a center-right country. “I earned capital in this election,” Bush bragged, “and I’m going to spend it.”
The campaign had focused relentlessly on two issues, Bush’s leadership in the war on terror after 9/11 and the renewal of tax cuts passed in his first term.
But in the glow of victory, Bush proclaimed he had a mandate to re-engineer Social Security. He had called for it in the 2004 State of the Union. “Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account,” he said, “We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.” Bush had mentioned it persistently in the campaign — voters could not claim to be totally surprised. But entitlement reform was not anywhere near the top issues voters had listed. Instead, moral issues ranked highest, followed by the Iraq War and the economy/jobs.
And yet, Bush’s team pushed a postelection messaging campaign after the election to solidify support for Social Security reform in the month after the election. It blew up in their face. From the State of the Union to June, public disapproval of his handling of the issue rose from 48 to 64 percent.
Bush’s signature issue, the Iraq War, also turned against him. As violence increased in Iraq with a Sunni uprising, Bush’s earlier appearance under a banner “Mission Accomplished” looked prematurely self-satisfied. Similarly, earlier joking at the White House Correspondents Dinner that “those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere” looked flippant as casualty rates increased year over year: 10.9 deaths per 1,000 between May 2004 and May 2005, then jumping to 19.8 deaths per 1,000 between 2005 and 2006. The president had campaigned on being a sober, worldly-wise leader but seemed like a less serious figure.
Finally, there was Hurricane Katrina. Again, Bush looked too aloof and not sure-footed. He praised the efforts of FEMA when FEMA had become a popular scapegoat symbolizing government incompetence. His image as a compassionate conservative was undermined. Some of this was deserved, some was just politically unlucky. The poor response of local and state government in New Orleans and Louisiana seemed to attach itself to Bush. His approval rating a month after the hurricane bottomed out before 40 percent.
A little over a year later, Democrats would roar into Congress (gaining 31 seats) and the Senate (gaining six), beginning to set up the momentum for even more gains in 2008 under the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The center-right-nation talk would go away for a decade.
It’s a human thing to confuse a solid victory with a sweeping mandate. But presidents need to carefully protect their image as competent leaders when pursuing their signature policies. Not even the current administration has learned to defy the laws of political gravity.
The truth is that the American public quickly forgets how it came to decide on this or that president. They are willing to allow presidents time to fix big problems — so long as those presidents communicate to them clearly what the plan is and what it will feel like to proceed through it. But most of all, they want the issue they reported caring about addressed, and addressed competently. The more that a president seems to be on an ideological crusade — whether Clinton before 1994, Bush before 2006, or Obama before 2010 — the more likely he is to be hammered for it.
Let those with ears hear.