Soccer Dad

Extreme Prejudice

Last week two columnists discussed the interesting phenomenon of Bush hatred. For his part, Robert Samuelson debunks some of the assumptions of Bush hatred"Bush-Hatred: Fearful Loathing . . . ":

But just because lots of people feel passionately about Bush doesn't mean the country is split into Bush lovers and haters. Many Americans are ambivalent, as they often are. Some like Bush and not his policies -- or the reverse. Consider a Los Angeles Times survey in November (before Saddam Hussein's capture improved Bush's ratings): 40 percent liked the president and his policies; 6 percent liked his policies and disliked him; 28 percent liked him and disliked his policies; and 20 percent disliked him and his policies. Almost three-quarters liked the president or his policies. Interestingly, at the end of their presidencies, both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton enjoyed either personal or policy approval from about three-quarters of voters.

According to Samuelson then, the hatred of Bush is vastly overstated. The problem Samuelson has is with those that hate Bush and what that means:

In the end, Bush hating says more about the haters than the hated -- and here, too, the parallels with Clinton are strong. This hatred embodies much fear and insecurity. The anti-Clinton fanatics hated him not simply because he occasionally lied, committed adultery or exhibited an air of intellectual superiority. What really infuriated them was that he kept succeeding -- he won reelection, his approval ratings stayed high -- and that diminished their standing. If Clinton was approved, they must be disapproved.

In this way, he is similar to Dick Morris who writes in the "The Ricochet Effect":

Here's how it works. An incumbent president tends to catalyze opposite reactions among the moderates and the extremists in the opposition party. Because he is adopting policies which help the nation and echo the demands of the broad center, he attracts moderates in the other party. But as he pursues the core policies of his own party, he generally triggers greater hostility from the true believers on the other side.

Thus, President Bill Clinton's policies of reforming welfare and balancing the budget attracted moderates among Independents and Republicans. But his position on core Democratic issues like gun control and abortion drove the right-wing extremists crazy.

Similarly, President Bush's embrace of prescription-drug benefits for the elderly and his stalwart stand against terror lures the centrist Democrats and Independents. But his backing for the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act alienates the extreme left and whips them into a fine fury.

There's little to disagree with in terms of his (and Samuelson's) diagnosis. While Samuelson uses his observation to judge the haters, Morris uses it to show that the hate is part of an ongoing process:

Because George W. Bush is attracting moderates with his forthright stand against terrorism, his willingness to go to war to defend our security, and his relatively compassionate social agenda, he is winning over Democrats and Independents who might once have voted against him. Those moderates who remain Democrats find themselves weakened by the defection of these moderates and become outvoted in the Democratic primaries.

This phenomenon is precisely why Joseph Lieberman is losing to Howard Dean in the Democratic race for president. His constituency is voting for Bush and has left his party.

But Bush's strong Republican stands on the war in Iraq, defense spending, intrusive measures to fight domestic terrorism, support for conservative judges and opposition to powerful environmental measures leads the Democratic left to oppose him in ever stronger terms.

I guess time will tell how true this is.

Posted by SoccerDad at January 2, 2004 01:26 AM | TrackBack