|  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: Wealth of Nations: Why the Terrorists in Madrid Hit Every Target (March 31, 2004) While the election results in Spain were dismaying, they shouldn't be used to accuse that nation of cowardice and appeasement. Spain voted as it did for more complicated reasons. By Clive Crook. Legal Affairs: How Spain Could Bring Bush and Kerry Together (March 24, 2004) What happened in Spain is a disaster for the United States—so much so that George W. Bush and John Kerry need to issue a national-unity declaration. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Media: The Wallflower Knows (March 24, 2004) C-SPAN has downsized Washington, revealing it to be a city of mere people, not giants. By William Powers. Political Pulse: Loophole Advocacy (March 24, 2004) It looks as if many Democrats have changed their minds about wanting to get soft money out of politics. By William Schneider. Social Studies: In Geneva, the U.N.'s Successor May Be Testing Its Wings (March 24, 2004) Since 1996, a handful of foreign-policy wonks have been kicking around the idea of a "democracy caucus" at the U.N. Now it looks as if it might actually happen. By Jonathan Rauch. More from National Journal. |
Political Pulse 
Bush's Vanished Capital
President Bush accumulated a vast supply of political capital after 9/11. But he spent it—all of it—on Iraq. by William Schneider .... President George H.W. Bush was widely criticized for accumulating a vast supply of political capital after the Persian Gulf War—and then not spending it on anything. No bold ideas, no big ambitions. That criticism does not apply to his son. President George W. Bush accumulated a vast supply of political capital following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But unlike his father, this President Bush spent it—all of it—on Iraq. With his job ratings now hovering around 50 percent, he has very nearly spent himself into a popularity deficit. One year after the United States attacked Iraq, what's happened to public support for the war? In March 2003, just after the invasion began, two-thirds of Americans supported going to war, according to the Gallup Poll. Victory was swift, but it has been followed by a bloody, costly occupation. When Americans found out just how costly, public support dropped. By last September, Americans were evenly divided over whether it had been worth going to war against Iraq. The capture of Saddam Hussein in December rallied public support for the war back up to nearly two-thirds. This month's Gallup Poll shows that a majority of Americans support the war (55 percent), but the support is not as solid as it once was. The Iraq war has become increasingly controversial and a major source of division between the parties. Republicans are virtually unanimous in viewing the war as worthwhile (90 percent). But 72 percent of Democrats say the war was not worth fighting. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was the first Democratic presidential candidate to tap into his party's intense anger over Iraq. Other Democrats, including those who had voted to authorize the war, quickly took up the theme. They argued that going to war may have been the right thing to do, but that the Bush administration did it all wrong. "This administration has been so unilateral, so stiff-arming of other countries, that we've had a very difficult time bringing people to the table," presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry said last week. In January, David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector, made his startling revelation: "The intelligence service believed there were WMD [in Iraq]. It turns out, we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment." That caused Americans to rethink the justification for the war. Last June, most Americans thought the threat from Iraq had been serious enough to require immediate military action (53 percent), according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. Now, most Americans don't think it was. In this month's Times/CBS poll, only 42 percent endorsed the view that the situation back then required immediate military action. That contrasts with public reaction to the Persian Gulf War, which was far more controversial at the outset because the United States had not been attacked. But U.S. troops got out of Iraq quickly in 1991. No occupation, no controversy. A year after it began, the war in Iraq is more controversial than ever. The public is split over whether attacking Iraq has made the United States safer from terrorism: 50 percent say it has; 47 percent say it hasn't, according to Gallup. The debate will continue to be driven by events, such as the bombing this month in Spain and the ongoing attacks in Iraq. The administration portrays those attacks as tests of U.S. resolve. "The thugs and assassins in Iraq are desperately trying to shake our will," Vice President Cheney said last week. Kerry echoes that resolve. "To leave too soon would leave behind a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists," he warned. But Kerry also declared that he would do things differently. "The answer is not a stubborn pursuit of the same arrogant policies," he said in his March 17 speech to military families. "The answer to failure is not more of the same." Kerry could not treat the change of government in Spain as good news. "The new prime minister should not have decided that he was going to pull out of Iraq," Kerry said. "He should have said, 'This increases our determination to get the job done.'" But Kerry also called attention to the fact that the United States lost an ally: "The administration stubbornly holds to failed unilateral policies that drive potential, significant, important, long-standing allies away from us." For one year after 9/11, Bush was widely acclaimed as the leader of the war on terrorism. The world was united behind the war in Afghanistan. This country was united behind its president. Even a majority of Democrats supported Bush. September 2002 saw the beginning of the buildup to war in Iraq. By investing his political capital in that enterprise, Bush completely transformed his image. The Iraq war alienated the world and divided the country. In the current Times/CBS poll, 64 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the war on terrorism. That's the Bush of 9/11. Only 49 percent approve of the way he's handling Iraq. Bush is campaigning to restore the consensus that prevailed immediately after September 11. His message: I'm still the president who led the world after 9/11; Iraq has to be seen as part of the war on terrorism. Kerry's message: I can be the president who restores the post-9/11 consensus in the world and in the country, and George W. Bush can't—because he blew it on Iraq.
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2004 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. |
| ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
