Bad Incentives
You know, the Dick Morris column I was mocking below makes a worthwhile point in a roundabout way -- since terrorism is the GOP's winningest political issue, Bush benefits in a weird way from things going badly. It's often assumed, for example, that the mess in Iraq is a big political problem for the President. But consider the alternative. If we'd just had a brilliant success in Spring 2003 (and assuming the success wasn't followed up by some misadventure in Syria or wherever) then, sure, Bush would have been riding high all through summer/fall '03. But by the time of the Democratic convention in summer 2004, nobody would really care anymore. Sure, big majorities would give Bush credit for having won the war, but it wouldn't be a voting issue. By contrast, though messing things up gives you a much lower ceiling, it also raises the salience of GOP strength on "toughness" and intra-Democratic disagreement on the issue.
This is a pretty dangerous dynamic for a country. During the 1980s, the national Republican Party got a lot of mileage out of public concerns about a suite of issues surrounding crime, drugs, welfare and general urban decay. Not coincidentally, though, nothing was actually done about this and things kept getting worse and worse, which was really better-and-better for the political fortunes of the folks running the country. Urban America started to turn around only when the political dynamic shifted. It was bad politically for both national Democrats and Republican big city mayors (Giuliani, Reardon, etc.) for crime to high and somehow or other crime started going down.
I don't think Republicans deliberately screw up national security or crime policy for political gain, but I don't think this is a coincidence either. When you know you're going to suffer politically if something goes wrong, you have every incentive to think carefully, imaginatively, and pragmatically about fixing things. If crisis is good for you politically because it gives you a chance to deliver crowd pleasing speeches, then you have every incentive to stay inside your ideological box, keep on doing the same thing, and blame problems on external actors.
I'm not sure you mean "terrorism" here so much as you mean "the war." The war in Iraq, by any definition, has not gone that well since it's initial successes, but is a bit of a mixed blessing for the Republican party, for reasons you describe.
The war on terrorism, on the other hand, has been pretty successful. It's worth remembering here that not a single terrorist attack has taken place on US soil since September 11. Is it really credible that if there had been, the President could use it to his political advantage? I sure hope not...
January 17, 2006 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
See also Democrats, Social Security and, 1938-2006
January 17, 2006 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt,
I've been making this point fairly often in discussions of the 'special executive war time powers', in that, read expansively, such powers give the executive a disincentive to end a conflict ASAP.
January 17, 2006 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The war on terrorism, on the other hand, has been pretty successful.
January 17, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"right," except that the invasion and subsequent bungling of Iraq has led to major setbacks in what was heretofore a qualified success in the WoT (btw, where are Osama and Zawahiri and for that matter Zarqawi?).
January 17, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is difficult to escape the obvious conclusion to be drawn from noting that pre 9/11 GWBush was well on the way to being laughed out of Washington. Only because those few Saudi's and an Egyptian decided while living in Germany to launch a daring and preposterous attack on our country using one of our country's most successful exports to do it, did Bush's fortunes reverse. Then, when we Americans showed ourselves to be so easily frightened and so willing to pay any price to ease that fright, Bush was able to eke out a second term in office. One would be a dunce not to wonder how all of this just accidentally happened.
However, I am not paranoid, so I do think this just accidentally happened, or it accidentally happened up until the Bush strategists recognized that a golden opportunity had fallen in their laps. At that point, which was shortly after 9/12/01, things began to happen in a planned way. And, I doubt that much that was unplanned has happened since then.
January 17, 2006 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
right writes
It is worth remembering that this statement is FALSE.
In the days following 9/11, envelopes containing anthrax were mailed to several news organizations and two Senate offices. Five people died as a result of exposure to anthrax. This was a terrorist attack using a biological agent routinely described as a WMD. No one has ever been found responsible for these attacks.
January 17, 2006 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fear and the resulting insecurity long predates Dubya as the GOP's winningest political issue. Specific acts of terrorism or specific wars don't necessarily benefit the GOP (it's conditionally dependent), but terrorism and war in the abstract do benefit the GOP because of how those abstractions are rooted in fear/insecuiry/hatred/belligerence and how they complement of the GOP's image as the patriarchal party.
January 17, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that a couple people on this blog, to include the original author, use the "Bush didn't screw up intentionally but..." line of reasoning to then attribute nefarious schemes to Bush and his evil henchmen. I am sure that Bush would have been happy to serve two terms in office without a GWOT. Unfortunately, our enemies get a vote and altered the agenda.
There are dangerous people in the world that are bent on changing our way of life for the worse. They have declared war on us and the West. We viewed them through the Treaty of Westphalia/Nation State prism until 9-11. In addition, there are many more that are passively - aggresively supporting these dangerous people. I think a lot of people in the world see the terrorists as delivering a comeuppance to the US; the uni-power.
Clinton spent eight years doing "nada" in dealing with these terrorists. They were viewed as a law enforcement problem and their occasional attacks were viewed as the price of being involved in the international scene. 9-11 woke us up to the true threat facing us. The Middle East and it's politics/society is dysfunctional in the 21st Century. The status quo was not benefiting us or the world's security. Bush decided to start kicking over the ant piles to force a reform agenda in that part of the world. Reform is needed and wasn't coming soon enough. Consider the numerous reforms/successes that have ocurred in the ME since the invasion of Iraq. Coincidences? I think not.
Remember, it's not us; it's them. They hate us for what we are and what we represent. Also, 500 million Arabs don't live in repressive squalor because of five million Jews in Israel. Democrats need to get over their American self loathing and come up with a positive agenda. I know what they are against (anything "Bushitler" wants to do) but I am not sure what they are for or would do differently. "Bush Lied" is not a valid foreign policy and won't change undecided minds. I think most Americans are uneasy with the war in Iraq and its strategic ties to the GWOT but they sense that somehow we are doing a good thing in a bad neighborhood.
January 18, 2006 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was 7 years from the first WTC bombing before Al Qaeda tried mounting another major terrorist attack on mainland US (the Millenium bombing plot). Some careful intelligence was able to foil that without any stupid GWOT. Sure we had the Cole bombing; since 9/11 we've had the Bali bombing, London bombings, Madrid bombings, etc.
As some have already pointed out, we are today living one major terrorist strike away from domestic fascism. With the knowledge that there are plans in place to bomb Iran as soon as there is another terrorist strike in the US, one wonders if the current lack of preparedness is just blind incompetence or something much more sinister....
January 18, 2006 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If crisis is good for you politically because it gives you a chance to deliver crowd pleasing speeches, then you have every incentive to stay inside your ideological box, keep on doing the same thing, and blame problems on external actors.
Matt, you damned rabble-rouser, I knew you were going to write a post about how the Democrats shouldn't do anything about Republican corruption.
January 18, 2006 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am still trying to figure out why there were no successful terrorist attacks on US soil before 9/11. HoppyCalif
Because, oh great swami, that was before "9/11 changed everything" -- or maybe not.
January 18, 2006 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"9-11 woke us up to the true threat facing us."
Yes, the threat of the fearfulness of the American people. Overreacting to 9-11 was always going to be good politics, but it turned out to be bad policy. Even if the supposed Bush reform agenda (which is where with regard to Egypt, the most important Arab country?) is sucessful and 'the swamp gets drained,' I think we're going to find that there are still terrorist fanatics out there. Maybe they'll stop fixating on us, maybe they won't.
Bin Laden can kill a few thousand of us, but only we can destroy American society because apparently a majority have not the stomach for living in a free society where some insecurity is part of the price you pay for freedom. The Soviet Union faced no terrorist attacks that I'm aware of.
As the license plate says ... yeah, right.
January 18, 2006 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, you've just delivered the classic GOP "plantation" argument in reverse. According to this argument, Democrats tell black people that they're being screwed by white people so blacks turn around and vote Democratic in order to get government handouts and preferential treatment in hiring, etc. But Democrats never really change things for the better for black people - at least not in any major way. Alas, blacks are still "stuck on the Democratic plantation", relying on their good ole' white masters to give them crumbs off the table, etc. If the Dems actually delivered for black people, and helped them become middle class or rich then they wouldn't rely on government handouts and affirmative action anymore, and they'd vote Republican. That's the argument, at least. And you've basically argued that it applies to national security for Republicans. I disagree with you and with the plantation argument.
January 18, 2006 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
<i>Remember, it's not us; it's them. They hate us for what we are and what we represent.</i>
Listen to the conservative; conservatives know all about hating Americans for what we are and what we represent. You gotta respect someone who speaks from experience.
January 19, 2006 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink