This campaign season, Republicans will tread new constitutional and political ground. President Bush, though leader of the governing party, will not be personally accountable to the electorate. The U.S. Constitution's Twenty-Second Amendment bars Bush from another term. Only impeachment, resignation, death or disability can remove him before his current term ends in January, 2009.
There have only been two constitutionally similar situations in American history, 1988 (Reagan) and 2000 (Clinton), both very different politically. Ronald Reagan ended his second term broadly popular. In spite of well-known personal difficulties, Bill Clinton remained popular among Democrats.
Voters across the political spectrum have turned against President Bush. In 2006, Democrats and independents expressed that disapproval by voting against Republicans at federal, state and local levels. Anti-Bush Republicans and conservatives did so by staying home. Under English or European constitutional practice the Bush administration would have ended in 2006, earlier if opinion polls are to be believed.
New ground calls for new rules, specifically concerning party loyalty. In my view the Republican Party's 2008 candidates have the perfect right, and would be well advised to repudiate President Bush. They should also distance themselves from the cause of their party's current woes – Bush administration-crafted foreign and domestic policies collectively known as the “Global War on Terror.”
Internal GOP politics might make it easier to just let the clock run out on the current administration, then pretend Bush never existed or that he came from another planet. Unfortunately, the voters know better. President Bush won office by gaining support from Republicans everywhere, including my home state (Washington). I was one of them. I phoned for Bush in his local (Spokane, Washington) nomination contest against John McCain.
It's time we Republicans acknowledge our mistake. GOP leaders can learn it was a mistake the easy way, from polls and other indicators of public opinion, or they can learn it the hard way (again) from voter rejection. In my Eastern Washington home, last year's GOP debacle crushed a personally and professionally admirable U.S. Senate candidate, halved the substantial first-term victory margin of my Republican Representative and took down several local Republican officials.
True believers in the Global War on Terror will say “The Muslims attacked us! What else could President Bush do?” Nonsense! It is as silly to say Muslims attacked America on 9/11 as saying Americans fought Christians in 1775 and 1812 (British), and again in 1846 (Mexicans), 1861 (Confederates), 1898 (Spanish) and 1917 (Germans); or saying Shintoists attacked America in 1941 (Japan); or Animists (American Indians) fought American settlers and soldiers during the 19th Century.
It makes more sense (though not much) to blame particular Islamic nations. That would make Saudi Arabia a prime candidate for responsibility, as home to 15 of the 19, 9/11 hijackers and their leader Osama bin Laden. The other culprit nation was Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda was closely affiliated with the Taliban government and 9/11 attack plans were reportedly developed.
So Bush attacks Afghanistan (some justification), mires us in a guerrilla war in Iraq (no 9/11 involvement) and pounds the drum for war with Iran (also no 9/11 involvement). He had many other options. My choice would have been condemning the attacks as particularly vicious crimes, then instructing law enforcement authorities to pursue the responsible individuals and criminal organizations, notably Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. U.S. agencies should have worked with counterparts in other nations and international organizations. Supporting military measures (if required) should have been conducted under international sanction.
I first resisted joining Democrats and liberals who obviously delighted in blaming a Republican President for the anti-Muslim hysteria following 9/11. I still hoped for conservative reform during the era of all-Republican government begun by election of Bush in 2000. I also believed (and still believe) the media and public, including many Democrats, bore a share of responsibility for the seemingly endless national frenzy over terrorism. I expressed those views in a local newspaper (Pacific Northwest Inlander, February 20, 2003).
"In a . . . democratic society leaders and followers share responsibility for the bad as well as the good. . . . Politicians who pound the war drums and bureaucrats who peddle multi-billion dollar "homeland security" programs should be . . . accountable for the costs and casualties as they inevitably roll in. So should we . . . [the voting public] . . . [A]re you willing to . . . be accountable for what lies at the end of the road we are traveling? I'm not."
My breaking point came a few months later when Presidential political advisor Karl Rove openly bragged about plans to run his boss as the “Warrior President” in 2004. The breaking point for many other Americans was the 2006 Military Commissions Act, an affront to civil liberties (notably habeas corpus) proposed by Bush and approved by the GOP controlled Congress. That law was cheered by (some) conservative commentators who hoped it would help GOP candidates. Instead, voter revulsion ended Republican Congressional control along with many GOP political careers.
Power denies some politicians the ability to deal with adversity. Hitler's 1939 invasion of Poland, which began World War II, also repudiated British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy. The rules of British parliamentary democracy demanded Chamberlain's resignation. Yet he resisted until a delegation of his own Conservative Party leaders threatened to march on his 10 Downing Street office. World War II ended with an equally delusional Adolph Hitler plotting a second German invasion of the USSR – as Russian tanks rolled into Berlin.
Rebelliousness is not a favored Republican trait. Realism suggests most Republican candidates will conduct their 2008 campaigns under the banner of an also failed and increasingly delusional leader. For those loyal soldiers next year's task will be personal survival in the face of an almost inevitable Democratic landslide.
Then what? From my conservative perspective many grisly possibilities come to mind. And one pleasant one. Another Republican wipe-out year was 1964 – my first voting year. From the ashes of Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat grew the thoughtful, cautious, skeptical-of-government conservatism I grew up with and have worked for ever since.
This once young, now old Goldwater conservative does not relish the onset of campaign 2008 or its likely outcome. However, good politics must be about hope, not fear, anger or despair. My hope is departure of George W. Bush and his rapidly shrinking cadre of "Warrior Republicans" will signal my party's return to its earlier and wiser traditions.
November 8, 2007
