There is palpable glee on the left these days over the collapse of support for George W. Bush. The left has always hated him, but with increasingly fractious republicans grumbling and openly complaining about him, well, perhaps we could be forgiven for indulging in a bit of self-congratulation. We knew all along he was a loser bent on propping up his cronies at the expense of the country and now it appears that much of the rest of the country is waking up to that reality too. But there is developing on the left a dangerous fallacy -- that as goes the fortunes of George Bush, Jr., so goes the fortune of the rebpublican party and conservatism generally. I believe that is nothing more than wishful thinking that threatens to blind us to the task at hand going into 2006.
The anger directed at Bush from the right over the Meirs nomination has a distinctly familiar tone -- I can remember saying similar things about Bill Clinton on a number of occasions when he had the opportunity to move the country to the left but chose the status quo or a rightward move to the so-called "center." The fact of the matter is that a second-term president makes a convenient scapegoat for people across the political spectrum. But the carping that we're hearing from the right should not be confused with some massive change of heart. They aren't angry at Bush for Iraq, or Abu Ghraib or the Patriot Act or the election of 2000. They're angry that he didn't go far
enough off the deep end when choosing a supreme court nominee. The idea that somehow Bush's dwindling support means electoral gold for Democrats in 2006 is nothing more than faulty logic.
Anyone who believes that Bush falling poll numbers means that the country is moving to the left is kidding themselves. The comments at redstate.org have been voluminous with respect to the Meirs nomination, but none of the few dozen I read said anything like "gee, maybe women should have the right to choose an abortion." No, like Rush Limbaugh, most commenters are simply sad that Bush didn't stick it to the left in the most blatant, shameless, and humiliating way possible. They thought that with this nomination they had the chance to undo the 20th Century once and for all--and they might--but they are pissy that it is not guaranteed in advance. That, my friends, is not a recipe for electoral change.
Democrats running for office in 2006 should not avoid associating their opponents with Bush and DeLay, but they should realize that Bush is not the debate. There really IS a culture war under way, and our side must win on the merits if we are to win at all. We need to make the case for WHY the right to choose is essential, WHY it is in the world's best interests for us to leave Iraq, WHY government surveillance does not serve the public interests, WHY conservation and environmentalism makes sense and WHY money needs to be removed from politics once and for all. It will not be enough, not even close, to simply point at the other guy and say "he likes Bush."
The Republicans are far too disciplined for the Bush criticism to be an accident -- they have calculated that making Bush a pariah does not hurt them, and in fact may help. We would be well advised not to fall into their trap. By the time November 2006 rolls around, Bush may well be a marginalized and lonely guy, but that isn't going to mean squat at the state and municipal levels. In local races Bush will seem distant and far away and efforts to make those races about Bush will be perceived as non sequitur arguments that are disconnected from reality.
We need to get over George Bush. Yes, he's a moron. Yes, he's done incalculable damage to our country. But he is out of electoral play and that means he is no longer particularly relevant. Spending time and energy on him now amounts to living in the past, something we cannot afford to do when we desperately need to be looking to the future. We have to make the policies supported by republicans and the money used to elect them the main issues of the 2006 campaign. We need to make 2006 not about George Bush, but about the policies he has advanced. THAT is casting a broad net to snare the republican incumbents. Otherwise, frankly, the bulk of Americans will see us as mired in the past, whining about things that cannot be changed, and undesirable as leaders. That cannot be our public persona. We need to be talking, incessantly, about how to improve the country and the government and how great the world could be if we were in charge. We need to get the "whoa, man" look out of our eyes and sparkle with optimism and hope for a better tomorrow instead. If we want the people to treat us like leaders, we need to start leading. This country is hungry for change and has been sold a lemon by the republican party. Rather than making Bush voters feel bad about getting duped, we need to embrace them and help show them the way to redemption. Rather than saying "I told you so," we need to show that we really are a better choice by taking the higher ground. We need to lead by example, and part of that example will be to show the republican-voting public more mercy, patience, respect and forgiveness than they would ever show us. Constantly deriding Bush does not achieve that goal.
My polite request to the Kossack community is that we spend our energy here formulating the frames, messages and memes that will be our arsenal in 2006. I really believe it is a much better and more productive use of our time than continuing to harp on the failings of the whack-job in the white house. Folks, it's almost too late to take this country back. Let's use our time wisely.