Now that he's patched up his silent feud with the Democratic governor of Louisiana, George W. Bush is spending so much time in the Pelican State it looks like he's running against her. It's all part of his effort to convince Americans that he does know a disaster when he sees one.
But with his waterlogged approval ratings sinking fast, his longtime detractors are wondering what took people so long to see what they have always known about Bush's failures on the economy, in Iraq, and in his views about the role of the federal government.
Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and consultant, says Hurricane Katrina accelerated a slippage in the president's numbers that was well under way before the storm hit. In addition, it made him more susceptible to some of the charges that had been leveled against him during the 2004 presidential election, chiefly that the country was more prepared for a disaster at home than it was back on September 11.
“We said constantly during the campaign that he was not doing the things necessary to make us safer -- that he had not secured our ports, for example -- and Katrina exposes that in a very dramatic way,” says Greenberg.
“People were bewildered by that charge [of ill-preparedness], because it seems inconceivable that he wouldn't. I mean, why wouldn't he? You see a Department of Homeland Security being created, a lot of things on the surface.”
And while Democrats thundered away about the safety at home -- the need to secure ports and chemical plants, etc. -- nothing stuck.
“People trusted him on moral issues and security,” says Greenberg.
And in the end, that may have been the difference in the election. So now, there is a bittersweet swoon among Democrats, an odd mix of “I told you so,” “What took you so long?” and “What difference does it make for you to disapprove now, a year after the election?”
In the latest CNN/USA Today/ Gallup Poll, which was released earlier this week, 59 percent of people said that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Apparently, it has taken more than 1,900 dead Americans in Iraq over the last two and a half years for that truth to emerge.
As has been widely noted, all the Bush trips to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are part of an effort to stabilize a wounded presidency. Hence the launch of Operation Re-Engage W: He may say that he feels your pain, but he wants you to know that he has seen it, repeatedly.
Ironically, despite all the Katrina fallout, more American thinks the president is doing a better job on Katrina than he's doing on the economy. While the White House blathers on about the economy's “strong fundamentals” accompanied by “continued growth and expansion,” 63 percent of Americans look at the price of gas, the effects of the hurricane, the size of the deficit, and the fact that nearly the entire airline industry is in bankruptcy --and conclude that they don't approve of the president's stewardship on economic matters.
This may, indeed, be the death knell for Bush's already troubled Social Security reform effort, but much of what is driving the new antipathy to the president's economic program was predictable and predicted during earlier debates on tax cuts or the costs of the war in Iraq.
And that is what makes the Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Gore/Kerry crowd so incensed. But who's to be mad at? In some ways, anyone responsible for the political discourse is culpable. We don't listen anymore, and this is especially true of the right. It's not a surprise that the conservatives and the liberals don't understand each other, but the response to the misunderstanding, especially from conservatives, I think, is on par with those people who that the way to speak someone else's language is to shout in yours.
But clearly, Democrats must accept some of the blame for not taking the fight sufficiently to Bush earlier. Greenberg notes that the president has been vulnerable on the economy for a long time, and Democrats in general, and John Kerry in particular, failed to capitalize on that weakness.
“I think from the very beginning he is not somebody who was seen as looking out for the ordinary guy, but instead for big business and corporations, “ Greenberg says. “But there was a absence of any real discussion of the economy during the election. It was essentially taken off the table.”
The election was about security, remember? Yet just like the disaster in New Orleans was foreseeable, the underlying problems with Bush's leadership -- on Iraq and the economy -- was a tale often foretold. But who's to argue with the persuasive power of 145-mile-per-hour winds and $4-per-gallon gasoline to make the point better?
Terence Samuel is the chief congressional correspondent for U.S. News & World Report. His column about politics appears each week in the Prospect's online edition.
