Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The geopolitical significance of Bush's political weakness
In what will undoubtedly come as a relief for those of you who have lost interest in my iPod-induced emotional state, I offer for your consideration a short note from Stratfor this morning regarding the geopolitical significance of George W. Bush's extraordinarily weak political position:
U.S. President George W. Bush's State of the Union message, delivered Tuesday night, was framed by the release Monday of a CBS public opinion poll that shows Bush's approval ratings falling to only 28 percent. Those are the lowest ratings he has ever received, and take him to levels seen late in Watergate, in the weeks leading to Nixon's resignation. It should be noted that the CBS poll shows Bush as somewhat weaker than do other polls, which are tracking him in the low 30s. But the poll is consistent with others on the negative side, with everyone giving him a disapproval rating of 61-64 percent. The CBS poll differs primarily in that it has a higher undecided percentage than the other polls, and this is mostly subtracted from Bush's approval numbers. This undoubtedly is linked to a methodological issue of how questions are framed and how they are categorized.
Bush's poll ratings have now become a geopolitical issue. As we have discussed in the past, Bush's political position collapsed when he went below the high 30s. At that point, he started losing his Republican base. What we are now seeing is not an erosion of the base, but a Nixon-style split. When you push or break below the 30s, your base has divided. This, in turn, is reflected in the decision by some Republican senators to oppose Bush's troop surge in Iraq.
Bush's strategy in Iraq, to the extent that it has any viability, depends on the Iraqi -- and Iranian -- perception that Bush retains control of U.S. policy and that he has freedom to maneuver. Iraqi and Iranian politicians are watching the polls and watching Congress. The ultimate hammer that Congress has -- which it used to shut down U.S. participation in Vietnam -- is to cut off funding. Until now, there has been a general consensus that there aren't the votes in Congress to achieve that. That consensus has shaped an understanding that, no matter how weak Bush might be politically, he retains control of Iraq policy. That has been the psychological foundation of his strategy.
Even if we discount the CBS poll, Bush is now edging from the area where we can call him a crippled president -- if not a failed one -- to an area where he could genuinely lose the ability to govern. If his numbers plunge into the 20s, a substantial number of Republican senators and congress members might well decide that it is time to cut their own political losses and break with the president openly. That is what happened to Nixon. Leaving out the question of resignation or impeachment -- neither of which is possible under even worst-case scenarios -- Bush could face a revolt by enough Republicans in Congress that funding cuts could be imposed even in the face of a presidential veto. Presidents who have two-thirds of the public thinking poorly of them and only a quarter liking them might hold the office, but they do not run the country -- at least not very effectively.
Bush's strategy collapses if he is perceived as being crippled. No one will ally with the United States if they are unsure of continued U.S. support, and no one will hesitate to oppose the United States in Iraq if Congress seems likely to cut funding. Bush's military strategy was always a very long shot, but there was some possibility that he could achieve a political solution if he showed that he remained powerful.
We are now very near to the point where Bush's ability to govern, even in his role as commander-in-chief, is in jeopardy. We would judge that he is not quite there yet; but if other polls were to fall and stay in the 20s, the Republicans in Congress would split wide open. At this point, Bush is one piece of bad news away from paralysis. He could get lucky, but luck is one thing this president has not been able to count on. (bold emphasis added)
That is certainly true.
6 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jan 24, 10:02:00 AM:
Meanwhile, the Voice of America reported this week:
"Ethiopian troops have begun pulling out of Somalia's capital, almost a month after they came in to support Somali government troops battling Islamists...At a small departure ceremony in Mogadishu, Ethiopian General Suem Hagoss told the gathering that it is time for Ethiopian soldiers to go home."
By 
, at
Wed Jan 24, 12:15:00 PM:
The enemy is not stupid. They know that a leader who is weak politically is a weak adversary militarily. The enemy also knows that their surrogates in our nation will defeat us for them, so all they have to do is threaten and bluster and we will fall. Simple isn't it?
Thank you, democrat and republican antiwar cowards.
By , at
Wed Jan 24, 12:38:00 PM:
You mean the SeeBS poll that polled 444 democrats and 292 republicans( I think these numbers are right). And since "independents" probably favor democrats 60%-40%, that makes this sterling poll a democrat over poll by what, 20%? This has been going on for 3 years. Don't you people read the polling data? Also, getting rid of and kicking butt on the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Qhaddafi, A.Q. Khan, Abu Sayef, the UIC in Somali(and the impending takedown of the mullahs in Tehran) among others, is hardly a failed president. Get Real.
By , at
Thu Jan 25, 04:52:00 AM:
The vice president is elected, not appointed. If Cheney resigns, Nancy Pelosi automatically becomes vice president. (Just like Ford, who was speaker of the house at that time, automatically became vp when Spiro Agnew resigned).
So there is no way for Bush and Cheney to jump ship unless they want Pelosi running things.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jan 26, 05:47:00 PM:
By , at
Tue Jan 30, 05:07:00 AM:
Ouch. Just goes to show me I need to be more tentative when I matter of factly assert nonsense. (either that, or learn to use google.) Good thing I stayed anonymous...
