The Bush (er, Rove) Failure

In the early 90's, President Clinton tried to create a national healthcare system practically overnight -- Rush Limbaugh would likely tell you more correctly that it was Hillary's doing, and that it was downright socialist. But that is beside the point. What is important is that President Clinton quickly learned from his failure and darted back to the political center, commandeering traditionally Republican issues like fiscal responsibility and welfare reform. He pulled it off masterfully and governed from the proverbial center for the remainder of his tenure. We all know that he went on to a second term and remained one of the nation's most popular presidents despite the whole impeachment fiasco.

I can just imagine what a slick little Republican operative named Karl Rove must have been thinking during these years: "we can play that game too". Rove, and by extension President Bush, likely thought that by appealing to the Republican base to get elected (here I think of missile defense promises, so-called "supply-side" tax cuts, faith based initiatives, etc.) he could then artfully move his way to the middle and govern from the center, a la Clinton, ensuring a two-term presidency. Of course 9/11 complicated these plans to an extent. But the response to 9/11 was hardly divisive politically... Iraq, well, that is a different story. But I sidetrack, let me get back to my point.

Just as Clinton angered conservatives with his healthcare shenanigans, Bush irked liberals with his tax cuts and then with his war in Iraq. So what does he do? He takes a page from Clinton's playbook -- make that a chapter from his playbook, or even multiple volumes. While Clinton tacked to the center with some moderate programs like Welfare to Work, Bush has unloaded in what seems to be bizarre attempt at appealing to moderates and liberals: A massive prescription drug benefit added to Medicare, a quasi-amnesty program for illegal immigrants, a significant rise in federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, a rapid rise in discretionary spending, a rapid rise in the budget deficit... oh yeah, and a pricey little mission to Mars.

This is a Republican we are talking about, right? On paper at least, that is what it says. But listening to Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh lately might certainly make you think otherwise. When the big three conservative radio superstars start attacking a Republican president for his policies, you know something is amiss.

What has gone wrong, exactly? Bush should be enjoying soaring poll numbers; after all, he has used the exact same strategy employed by his wildly popular predecessor. But here is what Rove, Bush, the national media, and just about everyone else seems to have missed: Clinton's success in the 90's resulted not so much from his political strategy, but from his raw political talent.

Bill Clinton, I am not the first to say, was a political phenomenon. Basketball has Michael Jordan. Baseball has Babe Ruth. Politics has Bill Clinton. Just because Michael Jordan could bust a move on someone does not necessarily mean that anyone else could pull off the same maneuver. The same goes for Clinton. It is that simple -- one would be sorely mistaken to draw conclusions about the ability of basketball players in general by watching the performance of Jordan. Rove and Bush, I contend, have made just that mistake by falsely believing that they could adopt Clinton's success strategies.

The key to Clinton's success rested in his ability to convince his liberal base that these traditionally conservative ideas were worthy of implementation by their party. And you know what? To take a line from the magnum opus of the late great Chris Farley (to those of you who are unfamiliar, I am talking about the movie Tommy Boy), Clinton could sell a ketchup popsicle to a woman wearing white gloves. That is, things that should be impossible by way of persuasion, Clinton somehow made possible.

Clinton was able to "sell" these conservative ideas to his base with ease. Bush will never come close to Clinton's level of success in doing that -- nor has he, to my knowledge, even really tried with his now-controversial policies. As a result, Bush has angered many conservatives -- just ask Hannity, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh. Tack those miffed conservatives on top of the liberals who are already downright irate with Bush and you have a major electoral problem.

Jordan can not be copied. Ruth can not be copied. And neither can Clinton be copied. As a Democrat who is not a fan of the current president's out-of-control spending, his irrational and irresponsible tax cuts, and his cowboy diplomacy, I am rather pleased that Rove and friends have made the fatal mistake of attempting to mimic a prodigy. In at least one poll this week, Bush's approval ratings have slipped into the 40s while he loses in head-to-head match-ups against Democratic frontrunners that are still largely unknown nationally. This is bad news for a sitting president during wartime.

If he has got any shot at re-election, Bush better hope that Rove realizes (quickly) that Clinton played by different rules -- rules that applied to no one but himself. And if Bush continues on this path, there is only one place it will lead him next January: Crawford, Texas. Admittedly, that is a place to which I would be glad to see him go.

Adam Schultz is a Senior majoring in Political Science