Fernand Braudel Center,
List of previous commentaries in English and translations in
other languages
Commentary No. 176, Jan. 1, 2006
"2005 - The Collapse of Bush's Authority"
Whatever one thinks of Bush's politics, there is no question that, at the start of 2005, he had arrived at the pinnacle of his authority. He had just been reelected and the Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress. Indeed, the Republicans were able to defeat the leader of the Democratic previous majority in the Senate. Bush interpreted this not only as a validation of his invasion of Iraq but as authorization to proceed with his very conservative economic agenda - renewal of the expiring tax cuts, a gutting of the social security program, drilling for oil in Alaska and in general a reduction of environmental protective measures as starters. He said that he was going to implement the mandate he felt he had obtained. Republican discipline was very strong and Bush controlled the signals.
Furthermore, the Democrats were deeply divided over whether they had done so poorly in the elections because they were seen as too far to the left or too far to the right. The former view was stronger among the Democrats in Congress. So Bush felt that he could count on at least some Democratic votes to add to his solid and united Republican bloc to pass any and all legislation that he favored.
One year later, all this has changed and changed radically. Almost all the legislation that was on Bush's list has failed to pass, and is unlikely to pass in the coming year. His unbreakable Republican bloc is now shattered. The so-called moderates have broken discipline. But so have the two right wings of the Republican Party - the fiscal ultra-conservatives and the Christian right. The Democrats are now showing the discipline that the Republicans had previously shown, so that the Republican breakaways have allowed them to win most crucial votes in one house of Congress or the other, but especially in the Senate. Bush's poll ratings are very low. Republicans up for reelection are asking Bush not to campaign for them. And at the end of 2005, some Democratic Congressmen have begun to talk of impeachment. Bush has even, for the first time, begun to admit that he may have made some (minor) errors during his presidency.
When we look at the heart of his world policy -
What happened in 2005 that accounts for such a turn-around in Bush's
political strength? Most of what has changed has occurred within the
The first and most obvious was that the casualty figures in
The second was the enormous catastrophe of Katrina, which revealed a level
of incompetence and social indifference in the Bush administration that left
most people gasping. But this is not what has undone Bush. He felt it necessary
to promise that the federal government would do something to repair the damage
and pressed Congress to adopt a very costly program. This was the straw that
broke the back of the Republican fiscal conservatives who had long been
dismayed by the growing level of
The third was Bush's ineptness concerning what may turn out to be his one achievement - naming conservative judges to the Supreme Court. The Harriet Miers fiasco broke the back of the Christian right who withdrew their automatic support of the Bush regime. To be sure they have no alternative to Bush but, now that he's in trouble otherwise, they are not rushing to bolster his position. They no longer trust him.
Then came the indictments - of Lewis Libby for the attempt to hurt Joseph Wilson because he exposed the brazen lies associated with alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the main justification of the invasion); of Tom DeLay, the former Republican majority leader in the House, charged with violating laws as part of his efforts to secure a Republican majority in the House of Representatives; and of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who was part of DeLay's network aimed at buying votes in Congress. And, in addition, there is still pending the possible indictments of Karl Rove, the president's leading political advisor, and Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader in the Senate. All political regimes are embarrassed by this kind of indictments, but there were too many for Bush in a short interval, and involving such key persons.
Finally, however, it is illegal acts that may bring Bush personally down. It
is not unusual for presidents of the
Initially, both the Congress and the media accepted these arguments by refusing to raise public objections. The scandal of Abu Ghraib caused the first public discomfort, which steadily grew. In 2005, Sen. McCain, who had suffered as a prisoner of war for five years and knew the consequences, led an open revolt, and got Congress to adopt a resolution forbidding such torture, over the very strong but in the end ineffective opposition of the Bush administration. Then someone leaked the story about the wiretaps, in which the Bush administration did not want even to use the rather easy legal path of going to a special and secret court to get authorization. The thing to notice is not that this happened, but that someone felt ready to leak it, and that the press was ready to report it. This was the way Nixon's downfall came about.
If things were going well elsewhere, Bush might survive all this. But they
are not going well for the
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights
and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites,
and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606.
Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others,
provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To
contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on
the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate
headlines but of the long term.]
Email this Commentary to a colleague
______________________________________________