Lost in the Wilderness

Ever since losing the presidential election last November, Republicans in general and conservatives in particular have been wandering in the wilderness.

In the last few months, we've seen it frequently — in the speculation about who is the front–runner for the 2012 Republican nomination, even in the speculation over who is the leader of the party. Sometimes it's simply been logic explaining why it was inevitable that the American people would rebel and strategy memos suggesting tactics to help that rebellion turn back in their favor.

The latest example comes to us from Republican pollster/strategist Kellyanne Conway in Human Events.

Now, as I say, Conway is a pollster, and pollsters are prone to look upon their findings as conclusions that are chiseled in stone. But her argument is the opposite — that Barack Obama's approval ratings, which have remained in the 60% range, are soft and likely to change.

I agree that his numbers will change. In my lifetime, Obama is the 10th man to be sworn in as president, and each of the previous nine saw his approval numbers fluctuate. Each presidency is different, of course, but that experience has been universal.

In many ways, though, Obama differs from previous presidents — and I'm not just talking about race. Unlike four of his five most recent predecessors, Obama was not a governor before he became president. Unlike the last eight men to sit in the Oval Office before him, Obama came to the presidency directly from Congress. And he spent most of his adult years in a region of the country, the industrial Midwest, that hadn't produced the winner of a national election since Warren Harding nearly 90 years ago (Michigan's Gerald Ford did serve as president, but he never won a national election).

In terms of experience, both professional and personal, Obama is a different kind of president than those with whom Congress is accustomed to dealing. Even if his tenure there was brief, he was "one of them" until recently, and he understands what makes members of Congress tick in ways that George W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter never could. And the Republicans in Congress, after being soundly beaten in two consecutive elections, are feeling particularly belligerent. So it should have come as no surprise to anyone when Rush Limbaugh, the unofficial leader of the party, said (even if he now suggests that he was referring only to Obama's alleged intention to impose his "socialist" agenda) that he hopes the president will fail.

Because, in spite of the lofty language about change in last year's campaign, "different" is often seen as being bad. And, while Limbaugh may have fewer followers these days, the Dittoheads who remain continue to follow his lead and openly hope Obama will make mistakes, as all new presidents do.

Some presidents who stumbled, like Jimmy Carter and the first President Bush, never managed to recover from their decline in the public's esteem and went on to lose bids for re–election. Others, like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, did recover and went on to win second terms.

Conway argues that there is a difference between the regard that people have for their new president and their level of approval for his policies.

"Strong majorities of Americans say his main priority should be the economy and jobs, while less than 5% want him to focus instead on abortion policy (most of whom are pro–life incidentally)," Conway writes. "Why, then, has he made or proposed three major changes to abortion–related policy in the first 100 days?"

That seems like a red herring to me — but not entirely. I mean, I've been arguing that the emphasis should be on the economy and jobs. I've worried that we were trying to do too much at once. I definitely have my reservations about some of the aspects of the stimulus package and the budget.

But I want the president's policies to succeed. There are no guarantees so I have to trust him to make the right decisions.

In a decidedly reversed role, I often feel like Jason Robards in "All the President's Men," when, as Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, he is having a newsroom conversation with Woodward and Bernstein.

"I can't do the reporting for my reporters, which means I have to trust them," he said, "and I hate trusting anybody."

I can't argue with the suggestion that Obama's personal popularity exceeds the support for his policies, but, again, it's nothing new. As I recall, there was a significant difference between public approval for Reagan, who was seen as personally likable, and his policies, which were a radical departure from what had come before.

Reagan, like Obama, took office during a severe recession. He believed that taking a different approach was the answer, but not everyone shared his opinion. And he tried to use his personal popularity to sell the public on his policies.

There is a certain amount of impatience on the part of the American people, though. Conway acts like this is something new, but Reagan, as revered as he is today, struggled with it in the midterm elections of 1982 and 1986.

"[T]hree months into Mr. Obama's presidency, twice the number of people thinks the country is headed on the wrong track rather than in the right direction," Conway writes. "Though the spin–doctors will revert to script and blame President Bush for this, the fact is that millions of Americans are nervous, angry, and impatient with what they see as a lack of results and the wrong priorities in what is now the Obama economy."

Duh. The economy has been shedding more than half a million jobs a month for several months now, and Americans are "nervous, angry and impatient." Stop the presses.

That gives me the chance, though, to mention something else. Conway doesn't talk about it in her article, but I've heard her mention in interviews how there were no more terrorist attacks on American soil after Sept. 11, 2001. Bush apologists have frequently said that Bush's policies "kept us safe," but I think that is an unsupported conclusion.

The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center the first time in 1993, then waited more than eight years before striking again. If the assertion about Bush is valid, shouldn't that suggest that Bill Clinton's policies kept America safe from terrorism as well? Yet, his Republican critics insist on chastising Clinton for not apprehending Osama bin Laden (in spite of the fact that Bush did not apprehend him, either).

The terrorists have demonstrated a willingness to wait a long time between attacks while they explore a variety of angles. The absence of an attack seems to have little, if anything, to do with anti–terrorism policies and rhetoric.

Still, Conway articulates a problem I have been warning about for quite awhile — namely that a president's "honeymoon" with the public will last only so long, and, in the absence of evidence that things are truly getting better, public opinion will start to turn.

Some of that impatience was on display in the "tea parties" last week — but most, if not all, of the participants were not and never had been Obama supporters.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not consider myself a supporter, nor do I consider myself an opponent. I consider myself an American, a free agent who sometimes agrees with the president and sometimes disagrees with the president. I am in no one's pocket. And I never felt that I should attend one of the tea parties.

I think I embody what Conway meant when she wrote, "Approval means something, but it should not be confused with respect, agreement, confidence, blind faith or a blank check. It is not a commitment; for many, it is a polite nod of the head or shrug of the shoulder," although I feel that I can respect an elected leader and still disapprove of the job he/she is doing.

Too few of Bush's supporters — including Conway herself — adhered to that definition. They blindly supported Bush even if they disagreed with him, even when they had lost confidence in him, and they continued to give him a blank check to do as he saw fit.

In the case of Obama, I tend to think that only the president's most ardent supporters and opponents regard themselves as sure things for either side. There are those who are much too willing to drink whatever flavor Kool–Aid is being served. But there are always extremists.

I concede, though, that I did not vote for Obama. Nor did I vote for John McCain.

For the most part, Conway does not describe my position in her article — except when she writes the following:

"Most Americans want the president — whoever he is — to do well, since they view (rightly or wrongly) a nexus between his success or failure and that of the nation."

I do believe a president's success and the nation's success are connected. Even when I have disagreed with a president's policy decisions, I have hoped that the president's decisions would work out in spite of my reservations.

Not for one second have I thought that I know more than anyone who has held that office in my lifetime — but I have disagreed with presidents from both parties.

And I certainly have never rooted for bad economic news to enhance my party's chances of victory. That would be unconscionably selfish. Too many innocent lives would be forced to pay the price.

And part of the idea, it seems to me, is to avoid as much of that as we possibly can.