Okay, now for some expanded, yet still uninformed, speculation.
Why did Bush beat Kerry? And what does that mean in four years? Four big reasons seemed to be the focus in exit polling and general chatter I heard:
- The War on Terror: It’s probably simplistic to say that people just voted their fears, or that those same fears were fanned solely by the GOP in order to win the vote. 9-11 was, after all, just three years ago, and we’ve seen other al-Qa’eda (attributed) attacks since then, elsewhere, so a certain degree of concern over world terror is justified. And, for whatever reason, we’ve not had another attack on US soil, so there’s a certain credit given to Bush. And, beyond that, there was the sense that Bush was willing to send in the Marines, while Kerry would call INTERPOL.
So, then — what happens in four years?
If there hasn’t been a further Big Attack on US Soil by then, I think people will be (perhaps irrationally) willing to move on. The situation will seem to be handled and under control. Beyond which, the person to whom folks looked in trust (Bush) will be leaving the scene, and even his endorsement won’t ring quite the same way.
If there is another big attack, that might not be to the GOP’s benefit, either. Sure, there will be finger-pointing, but it will be an attack on Dubya’s watch (the second, depending on how you count ’em), and folks might decide a different approach, or a different protector, is called for.
In other words, the WoT will not be nearly the GOP vote-getter in 2008 that it was in 2004. Heck, probably not in 2006, either.
(This, as well as the rest, assumes the Dems run a competent candidate. ‘Nuff said.)
- The War in Iraq: There was a lot of anger about Iraq, and, as even more than Bush supporter has noted, the President has not yet sold the American people on the war, just on the need to conclude it well. They trusted Bush to do this more than they trusted Kerry, who was expected (again, with some justification) to cut and run.
If things are still dicey in Iraq in four years, though, the GOP will be in serious trouble. Heck, make it two years, at the mid-term elections. And “dicey” in this case means ongoing major insurgency troubles regardless of whether US troops are there. At that point, the question of whether we should have gone in will be moot — it will be what we did once we were there, and the fault will lie fully on Bush, and, by extension, the GOP. (The Dems may, in the long run, be thankful that they and Kerry didn’t get stuck with this.)
If Iraq is going well in ’06 or ’08, it will bolster the GOP to some degree (especially if the Dems nominate a major war opponent). It will stand as proof that the Republicans are serious and effective in foreign policy. But it will not be nearly the electoral factor that it was this time around (foreign policy rarely drives elections — just as George Bush in 2000).
- The Economy: Just as Clinton benefited from a bubble that wasn’t primarily his doing, Bush suffered from the bursting thereof which, along with other factors, led to a recession. While not as effective in doing something about it as might be desired (though, in reality, the tax cuts probably did help spur the recovery), he managed to duck most of the responsibility and fallout — largely by depending on the previous two factors to cover for it. After all, you expect hardship in wartime, right?
But if the recovery is too sickly, or too brief, the GOP will reap the punishment in ’06 and ’08. Indeed, they may have done Dems a favor this year by winning, if things go south again in the economy.
If, on the other hand, the recovery is strong and lasting, the GOP will benefit. But, then, so will everyone else, right? So it’s not exactly something anyone would want to root against.
- The Culture War: As noted previously, there’s speculation that the populace is just plain ol’ getting more “conservative,” and this helped Bush this year (to get out the vote, if nothing else).
The question remains, is this just a hiccup? A last hurrah? Or perhaps it’s just folks holding up their hands for a moment to say “whoa” and catch their breath. Or maybe the pendulum really is swinging back.
What comes from that, though, is open to question. If the GOP pushes this too hard, then moderates who aren’t comfortable with gay marriage but who certainly don’t want to see Uncle Fred tossed in the clink because he lives with a “friend” are liable to defect in ’08, or even ’06. Folks who don’t like screwing around with the US Constitution are unlikely to go along with that sort of thing, either. And if the general population doesn’t want to see old traditions and mores tossed out by activist judges and left-wing loonies, they’re probably going to not be happy to see new rights that affect their family and friends tossed out (or not protected) by activist judges and right-wing loonies.
The general shift of the population back to the “right” may not be real or persistent. But if it is, it’s probably the most serious, long-term threat to the Dems and their constituency groups of any of these, since, after all, it would represent the will of the majority. I don’t think it’s a card the GOP can play too overtly, or too often, though; the populace may want to pull back a little to the right, but they don’t want to be pulled that direction too far, too fast, any more than they want to be pulled to the left too far or too fast. If the Dems are targeted and effective in their protestations and opposition, they will do a lot better than if they just reflexively resist anything that the GOP puts forward.
To that end, the biggest concern is probably that Bush & Co. will nominate all sorts of “awful” judges. The Dems have to be careful how they react here, and pick their battles carefully. Too much obstructionism makes them out as being solely partisan in their actions, and gives the GOP ammo for the next election. It’s dangerous to let bad judicial nominations through, but it may be necessary to let sub-optimal ones by in order to effectively stop the really bad ones.
There are a number of other factors that could come into play over the next four years.
- The way the Bush Administration comports itself could play a small part of future electoral decisions — bullying, or arrogance, or continued refusal to let the buck stop there will not, in and of itself, affect an election, but it will leave a taint, a bad taste in the public’s mouth that could tip a balance.
- It’s unlikely the environment will play a substantially greater part in folks’ decisions — those swayed by it already took that into account this time around — unless things get much more obviously worse in the next four years, the GOP is too overtly destructive of environmental laws, or there’s some sort of disaster that can be laid at their feet. But, again, for most voters the environment is a background issue, something that flavors the election decision, not something that decides it.
- A lot of folks are worried about civil liberties (on the Left and on the Right), but it seems unlikely that anything short of a major homeland security effort that would have much of the GOP in Congress in rebellion would actually make it a significant factor over the next few elections. Things will get a bit worse, but I don’t expect to see bar codes on everyone’s forehead and Orwellian televiewers in everyone’s home by 2008.
- Other foreign policy hot-spots could play a role. Iran and North Korea are obviously trouble spots. China is probably smart enough not to overplay its hand against the US just yet, but miscalculations could occur. Beyond Iraq and the WoT, if there are significant foreign policy blunders by Bush, it might have a small effect (though, again, foreign policy rarely decides elections.
- A scandal of some sort is possible to tip the scales — there are any number of skeletons rattling around in the White House closets. The problem is, I think folks are getting tired of the scandal shtick, largely because it’s been used indiscriminately as a club by both parties, rarely with the significance matching the sound and fury that accompanied it. It’s all too likely, though, that a major scandal in the Bush administration wouldn’t seriously hurt the GOP in ’06 or ’08, both because of their control of Congress (which would be expected to take the lead in any sort of inquiry) and because the population will attribute it more to being a political attack than a substantive indictment, all things being equal.
Bottom line, some of the bigger items that Bush was able to leverage this time around — Iraq, and the War on Terror — are unlikely to be significant benefits in 2008, but hold the risk of being significant dangers (assuming the Dems don’t self-destruct). The economy could affect the next presidential election in either direction, depending on where it is as of July 2008 (to that end, it might be best of the Dems to not win back Congress in ’06). The culture war aspect may be the biggest problem for the Dems and the Left to overcome, assuming it’s real, but that also assumes that GOP arrogance doesn’t create a backlash toward the center.
Of course, there may be a completely new factor in the next two years, and four, that nobody can predict now. After all, nobody in 2000 would have predicted either of the first two as major election-deciders.
It should be an interesting (cue Chinese proverb) next few months, seeing which way things are starting to go.
UPDATE: Doyce has his election post mortem. Good stuff — and, if what he says is true, probably not his “last political post for awhile,” regardless of the title.