Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves

In this morning's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne proclaims what so many of us long to hear: "The Bush Era is over." He writes:

The source of Bush's political success was his
claim that he could protect Americans. Leadership,
strength and security were Bush's calling cards.
Over the past two weeks, they were lost in the
surging waters of New Orleans.

While these were clearly not Bush's finest two weeks on the job (and that says a lot), I fear that Dionne (and he's certainly not alone on this score) is allowing wishful thinking to cloud his reasoning. Sadly, the Bush Era is far from over.

First and most obviously, we do not live under a parliamentary system of government; we cannot oust our leaders by way of no-confidence votes or special elections (unless, I suppose, we live in California). Therefore, no matter how unpopular Bush becomes, he will almost surely serve out the rest of his term, and he will continue to be the leader of a party that controls all of the political branches of our government. And Bush has never relied on bipartisan support. His standing among his own base is still very strong, thanks in large part to the power and influence of a fiercely loyal right-wing media machine. If you get all your news from the FoxNews Channel and right-wing talk radio (which is the case for far too many Americans), there is very little chance that you will be exposed to information or commentary that will in any way undermine your support for the President.

But what about the 2006 midterm elections, you ask. Won't Bush's current unpopularity allow the Democrats to retake Congress? It's possible, but very unlikely. First, the Democrats face some major institutional obstacles. For example, the very structure of the Senate gives the GOP an enormous advantage. Because representation is determined by state, not by population, the number of Senate seats corresponding to "red" states far outnumbers those corresponding to "blue" states. Moreover, our system is specifically designed to insulate the Senate from short term electoral volatility. That's why Senators have six year terms and only a third are up for election in any particular election year. Arguably, this electoral insulation is the only reason there are still 44 Democrats in the Senate (there are only 38 "blue" state Senate seats). At any rate, these two factors make it all but impossible for the Democrats to take back the Senate in 2006.

As for the House, Republican gerry-mandering of Congressional districts has all but entrenched the current GOP majority. Very few districts are even contestable anymore. Though it is not inconceivable that a landslide Democratic victory could result in a narrow Democratic majority in the House, such an outcome is far from likely, even if the elections were held today. Simply put, the House is not the same body it was back in 1994 when the Republicans took control. It is far less volatile and far more insulated from swings in public opinion.

Finally, as unpopular as Bush seems right now, the 2006 elections are over a year away. That's an eternity in politics. The electorate is fickle and all too often we have the memories of goldfish when it comes to holding our leaders accountable (or giving them credit) for events that occur under their watch. A lot can and will happen between now and November 2006 (not to mention November 2008).

While liberals are entitled to derive some satisfaction from Bush's plummeting approval ratings, we'd be well advised not to count on things staying this way. Now is the time for the Democratic party (and those in the Republican party with the guts to do so) to provide an alternative vision. Now is the time to explain, in simple and compelling terms, how an America run by someone other than Bush might look. It's time to build contrast, to explain to the country what responsible leadership and responsible policymaking look like. We may have only a fleeting window of time in which to make our case.