Bush is Nixon, not Clinton


This morning's Times (Perks and Perils of a Heavy Gavel) makes the point that the Democrats risk losing public support if they get too confrontational with Bush, as the Republicans did when they harassed Clinton. No doubt the point has some validity, and Adam Nagourney, though it must pain him to do so, does concede that the Democrats have a more receptive public than did the Republicans. The article emphasizes the political risks involved, etc., but if fails to recognize a rather critical difference between the Clinton episode and the present situation.

Much to the amazement of the Beltway punditocracy, the American people exhibited a fair amount of sophistication during the Clinton harassment episode. The Republicans never made the case (because there was none) that Clinton had done anything politically corrupt, anything that threatened the interests of the American people, or anything that undermined the Constitution. The reality was, and the American people perceived it, that the Republicans were ginning up a case against Clinton when nothing existed that mattered. They may not have approved of his sexual transgressions, but they had the maturity to look beyond them, and also found the Republican's insistence on dwelling on them a bit distasteful. Bear in mind there was never a backlash against Democrats for going after Nixon. People realized it was the right thing to do.

The elite would have conceded that of course sexual peccadilloes probably shouldn't matter, but they could never come to terms with the fact that, for the vast majority of Americans, they actually didn't matter enough to warrant impeaching a perfectly competent president. They just couldn't believe that the American people would not react in the knee jerk fashion that was all they believed the America people were capable.

In the present situation, they fail, and perhaps the Democrats do too, to appreciate that, while it may have taken a long time to sink in, the American people have learned a lesson. They have recognized Bush for what he is- a threat to them with his endless war and his basic incompetence and a threat to the Constitution. In other words, they recognize a basic substantive difference between Clinton and Bush, and they will be willing to see the Democrats go after Bush because they realize that, on the merits, he deserves it in a way that Clinton never did. It's very hard for folks like Nagourney to appreciate that most people make these judgments based on a relatively sophisticated set of criteria.

This disconnect may explain why the pundits simply ignore the widespread support in this country for impeaching Bush, a level of support never reached with respect to Clinton even with much of the media pushing them toward supporting it. Today, by contrast, the subject is taboo in the media while it draws widespread public support.

Long and short: it would take a lot for the Democrats to lose support as they wage war against Bush. People aren't so stupid that they don't realize that investigations are the only way that the Democrats can weaken him, considering the Republican ability to stymie substantive legislation in the Senate. In fact, the Democrats run a risk if they are perceived as rolling over in the face of Bush's dictatorial behavior. The appropriate precedent here is Watergate, not the fake scandals of the Clinton years.

In any event, the political damage suffered by Republicans as a result of the Clinton situation may be overstated. Two years after the impeachment, they took the presidency.
Posted: Sunday - March 25, 2007 at 07:41 PM          

©