TO: Future Presidents of America
FROM: Al From and Bruce Reed
SUBJECT: The Collapse of Bushism
Congratulations! The Bush economy has lost jobs faster than a Red Sox
manager, but George W. Bush is doing his best to create a job for you.
In December 1991, just 10 months after the first President Bush's victory
in Iraq, we predicted the "collapse of Bushism." We were so
sure of our analysis -- against the prevailing wisdom -- that we put
it on the cover of The New Democrat, the predecessor publication of Blueprint.
In our assessment, we foresaw "the end of Bushism, the uniquely
Republican conception of the presidency as all politics and no vision....
It's no accident that Bushism and Communism should fall together, for
the two shared a common flaw: Beneath the veneer of ideology, the thing
they believed in most deeply was staying in power."
Eleven months later, Bill Clinton was elected president. George H.W.
Bush's presidency had indeed collapsed.
Today, the same lust for power instead of results has brought Bushism
to the brink again. George W. Bush, who was supposed to learn from his
father's mistakes, has been condemned instead to repeat them. Like his
father, President Bush has remarkably little to show for his time in
office -- except a bigger deficit, a squandered international triumph,
divisive politics, huge job losses, and a broken political system. For
all his efforts to escape the curse of not grasping "the vision
thing," Bush the son goes into the next election without a working
vision of how to solve the country's nagging problems, win the war on
terror abroad, or make the economy prosper at home.
In recent months, Bush has fumbled his national security trump card and
revealed the staggering weakness of the rest of his hand: an economy
that has lost 3 million jobs and shipped nearly 1 million manufacturing
jobs overseas; 3 million more Americans in poverty, and 4 million more
uninsured; the sharpest increase in college tuition in a quarter-century;
health care costs rising even faster than in the last Bush presidency,
while household income keeps going down; and record deficits adding as
much to the national debt in the coming year as America ran up in its
first 200.
If Bush's record is dim, his agenda for the future is dimmer. Bush can
still promise Social Security reform and more tax cuts in a second term,
but the country is too broke to achieve them. His pledge to "change
the tone in Washington" looms as hollow as his father's "kinder,
gentler nation." Eventually, the United States will win in Iraq,
but it's now painfully clear Bush isn't up to the job of uniting the
world in the war on terror.
Bush, in short, is doing as much as he can to deserve to lose the next
election. Now it's up to you to earn the chance to win it.
The Vision Gap
We're increasingly optimistic that you will win in 2004. Bushism has
failed, and Democrats have a proven formula to solve the country's problems.
Nevertheless, for all Bush's troubles, you must still overcome the Democrats'
burden: showing Americans that you will stand up for their values and
economic interests and can be trusted to keep America safe in a dangerous
world. Doubts about Democrats' toughness on security issues loom larger
in the wake of 9/11, but they are nothing new. Just as many Democratic
leaders in the 1980s and early 1990s tried to pretend the party didn't
have a problem, the single most dangerous Democratic delusion today is
pretending that voters' doubts about them have gone away for good. We
shouldn't kid ourselves: Bush's entire political agenda -- on taxes,
national security, and values -- is to put Democrats back in the mold
that Bill Clinton worked so hard to break. Those nagging doubts will
never go away if we don't keep working every day to dispel them.
Yet the nagging doubt that troubles us most is new: Most Americans don't
think Democrats have a vision for the country. In the last Gallup poll
before the 2002 midterm election, 60 percent of the electorate thought
the Republicans had a vision, and only 30 percent thought Democrats had
one. Even now, with Bush's policies failing badly and his popularity
sinking fast, voters have so little idea of what Democrats stand for
that the vision gap remains a Republican advantage. In the voters' eyes,
Republicans have the vision, and we don't. For a Democratic Party whose
mission is to solve problems, that's a shocking indictment.
Unfortunately, some Democrats give Americans three reasons to wonder
whether the party has a vision: First, most Democrats would rather take
the easy route of criticizing the present than the risky one of offering
a new path for the future. In a Google search, the phrase "Democrats
attack Bush" turns up nearly 50 times as often in the past year
as "Democrats offer plan."
Second, too many Democrats are afraid of change and instinctively protect
old arrangements rather than modernize and reform them. For example,
many of you are competing to prove how much you'll do to slow trade expansion,
even though you know much of the 1990s boom depended on it.
Third, many Democrats are so jealous of the right's political success
that they're offering their own Democratic brand of Bushism: the notion
that you don't have to offer ways to solve the nation's problems if you're
good enough at blaming them on the other guy. A recent New York Times
headline from a Democratic gabfest on foreign policy captured that shortsighted
view: "The Bad News Is Good News for Democrats."
What both parties too often forget is that the only way to succeed
in politics over the long haul is to embrace a modern, coherent political
philosophy that works. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had Progressivism,
Franklin Roosevelt the New Deal, Bill Clinton "Opportunity, Responsibility,
and Community." In the end, Americans will only think we have a
vision if we actually offer them one.
As a candidate for the Democratic nomination, what can you do to close
Democrats' vision gap? You have to address each of these Democratic shortcomings
in turn.
1. Anger Management. The other recurrent delusion
holding Democrats back this year is the notion that if we just offer
enough red meat, a
stampede of Democratic voters will emerge from an undisclosed secure
location and carry us to victory. President Clinton put to rest the
false choice between energizing the base and persuading swing voters
by winning
twice. Republicans envied Clinton's success enough to copy his playbook
in 2000 (by retooling their party to appeal to swing voters) and in
2002 (by dramatically improving their turnout efforts). Karl Rove's
strategy
for 2004 is to do both: Excite conservatives with wars, judges, and
tax cuts; try to fool swing voters one more time with education and
prescription
drugs.
While Republicans are busy copying the Clinton formula, many Democrats
seem determined to forget it. Once again, Democrats are telling themselves
that the party should focus on turning out voters who already agree with
them, not on persuading the fence-sitters who still need convincing.
So many party regulars are pushing the energize-your-base strategy that
ABC's "The Note," the political insider's online bible, wrote
recently that swing voters were a "1990s premise" that "may
no longer be operative."
We don't care what the Atkins diet says: Too much red meat is still bad
for you.
So far, the Democratic race has been a shouting match to prove who can't
stand Bush the most. It turns out none of you wants to keep him in office!
Together, you have successfully reassured primary voters that if elected
president, you won't pass big tax cuts for the rich, appoint right-wing
judges, work hard to alienate our allies, or keep John Ashcroft as attorney
general. Like most Democrats, we don't like Bush either. But we don't
think this election will turn on whether voters can pick you out of a
lineup based on how loudly you say "miserable failure."
Every election is, in part, a referendum on the incumbent. But this is
not a recall election. Americans may have growing doubts about the president's
performance, but not enough are ready to join Democrats in blaming Bush
for all the country's problems.
Moreover, even if 2004 were a recall election, it's not enough to win
the vote on Recall Question 1. You have to give people a reason to vote
for you on Recall Question 2. If you go too far trying to make everyone
hate Bush, you may only succeed in making them dislike you.
The Schwarzenegger campaign is an interesting case study. The recall
of Gov. Gray Davis was a terrible idea, but the message California voters
sent is not the message that many national Democrats are hearing. Americans
aren't teeming with blind anger at incumbents. The real message from
voters is far more pragmatic: "Do your best to solve our problems,
or we'll find someone else who will."
2. Change Is Your Friend. Elections aren't about the present; they're
about the future. Why should Americans think Democrats have a vision
for the future when so many Democrats seem so afraid of it?
For example, we know that trade is a tough issue, especially in an economic
downturn. A candidate needs to balance the clear economic need to find
more markets with the clear economic hardships of people in sectors where
the greater good is no current consolation. But there's no excuse for
you to hightail and run from the global economy by pretending that you
can somehow reopen old trade agreements or get other nations to adopt
our standards. You can't say you'll restore the economic optimism and
growth of the 1990s when you're walking away from one of the engines
-- expanded trade -- that drove the 1990s expansion.
Lawrence Summers, a former treasury secretary, has pointed out that tariff
reductions in the 1990s amounted to the "largest tax cut in the
history of Planet Earth." They freed up enormous amounts of personal
income for consumption and investment alike, while making our economy
more productive.
Likewise, we know you're under pressure from some quarters to use Bush's
failure to fund the "No Child Left Behind" legislation as an
excuse to abandon education reform altogether. That would be a tragic
mistake. Making standards and accountability a national priority is the
right thing to do, and it was championed by Democrats long before Bush's
political handlers stumbled on it as a winning campaign issue. It represents
one of Democrats' great triumphs over Newt Gingrich conservatism. Bush's
failure to put up the money shows where his heart really is, and is a
reason to give up on this administration, not to give up on our moral
crusade to make sure every American has a first-rate public education.
It's not an accident that Americans almost always elect optimistic presidents.
John Kennedy's campaign slogan was "we can do better." Ronald
Reagan promised "morning in America." Bill Clinton was the
man from Hope who wouldn't stop thinking about tomorrow. As a candidate,
even George W. Bush managed to strike a hopeful note, declaring in his
announcement speech that "Americans live on the sunrise side of
the mountain."
Ironically, some of you have gone dark at the very moment Bush is forsaking
the sunny side. Bush can't afford to keep waiting for better times. Instead,
he'll spend the next year trying to scare Americans to death, and argue
they need him to keep the country safe in a dangerous world.
Keep that in mind as you make the rounds from one aggrieved interest
group to another. The party regulars you meet on the campaign trail may
not like change. But most Americans, and most rank-and-file Democrats,
are born optimists. They believe America can do better, and they want
a president who can give them more hope, not more fear. That's why they
elected and re-elected Wilson, Roosevelt, and Clinton.
The lesson most Democrats have chosen to draw from the 2002 midterm elections
is that we didn't stand up to Bush fiercely enough. While we share the
frustration that too many Democrats voted for Bush's tax cut in 2001,
what killed Democrats in 2002 was a different mistake. On the question
foremost in voters' minds -- homeland security -- Democrats did stand
up to Bush. Unfortunately, the line they chose to draw in the sand wasn't
about standing up for the safety of ordinary Americans; it was about
standing up for the rights of federal workers in the new Department of
Homeland Security. The White House cynically used that choice to doom
Democratic incumbents from red states like Max Cleland of Georgia and
Jean Carnahan of Missouri. It cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate.
Many Americans may not trust you to stand up for the nation's interests
in the world if you're not willing to stand up to narrow interests here
at home. Even more voters will simply tune you out, as just another politician.
If your campaign can't shed the whiff of the past, people won't bother
to listen to any new ideas you have to offer.
It takes political courage to be a party of reform, not reaction, and
to outline new ways of doing things instead of simply protecting old
arrangements. But we'll only get the chance to build a better future
for America if we believe in one.
3. May the Best Plan Win. So far, as primary contestants are wont to
do, you've spent a lot of time trying to prove that, unlike your opponents,
you're a "real Democrat." That's fine for the party faithful.
But the rest of America -- including a big chunk of the primary electorate
-- wants you to answer a different question: What is a Democrat, anyway?
And more important, what will America be like under a Democratic president?
We're counting on you to mix it up in the months to come, because only
you can answer that question. Are we the party of reform or reaction?
Do we believe in economic growth or redistribution? Will we expand the
middle class, or take the middle class for granted? Do we have the courage
to usher in our own responsibility era, or will we become the something-for-nothing
party once again?
There's plenty of time left in this campaign: By this point 12 years
ago, Bill Clinton had just joined the race. But it's not too late to
heed the advice Clinton was giving his party even then. Then, as now,
Democrats were angry about the direction the country had taken, and frustrated
about losing elections they should have won. Clinton could easily have
outshouted his primary opponents, but he knew that road led nowhere. "We're
not going to get positive change just by Bush-bashing," he said
in his announcement speech. "Americans know what we're against.
Let's show them what we're for."
That's as true now as it was then -- in fact, probably more so. Sooner
or later, the Democratic debate needs to turn from how much you dislike
Bush to what you are going to do about it. Next year, when the shouting
stops, voters won't be looking for someone who can take over America's
problems. The country will want someone with a real plan to solve them.
If the economy improves in 2004, as we hope, the Democrats' vision will
become even more important.
Bush's biggest weakness isn't his record; it's how little he has learned
from it. The world has changed immensely in the past 25 years, but Republicans
haven't had a new idea since Ronald Reagan. Their only economic tool
is big tax cuts; their only national security plank is talking tough.
Republicans refuse to fine-tune these simple theories, no matter what
evidence against them turns up. If all you have is a hammer, everything
looks like an angry white male.
Make no mistake: A vision is not an attitude, a summary of grievances
with the incumbent, or a collection of positions taken in response to
interest-group demands. Nor is it where you stand on a particular issue
-- or the message you repeat 20 times a day to placate your campaign
consultants. A vision is a road map of where you'll take the country
and the guiding principles by which you'll run it.
We know what enormous pressures you're under to tell activists and caucus-goers
what they want to hear. The war, the Bush administration's cynical partisanship,
and the lingering frustrations from the 2000 presidential cliffhanger
have all served to energize the angriest among us. So far, the primary
campaign has resembled a big therapy session for the Democratic Party.
But in the end, this election isn't about our problems -- it's about
the country's problems. It won't do any good to make ourselves feel better
if we don't offer the country a way to do better.
Your best chance to win the nomination and the presidency is to frame
those ideas into a compelling, coherent vision for the country. You need
to make clear that what's at stake in this election is not just a pile
of programs, it's a set of convictions.
We can't speak for you, but here's our vision for America: We believe
the purpose of America is to give everyone the chance to get ahead, not
to narrow the gates of privilege. We believe in expanding opportunity,
not bureaucracy, and in economic growth, not redistribution. From education
to health care to national service, we should offer every citizen a new
bargain of more opportunity in return for more responsibility, not a
return to the extremes of something for nothing, on the one hand, or
every man for himself, on the other. We believe in a strong American
role in the world that earns respect, not enmity. Above all, we believe
in putting our economy in line with our values, so that the middle class
and working poor have the chance to prosper, not sacrifice their dreams
so that America can become the world's largest tax shelter for the rich.
On taxes, some in our party still believe that middle-class Americans
won't mind us raising their taxes to pay for programs that poll well.
We must not forget that our real goal is to expand opportunity, not programs,
and that the answer to a Republican administration that has made middle-class
incomes stop growing isn't a Democratic promise to send their taxes shooting
up. More important, we believe that the Bush administration is out to
destroy the idea that built this country -- that hard work is the ticket
to a better life. If Bush has his way, the only Americans paying taxes
will be the ones who work the hardest. America's economy won't grow unless
the middle class grows. We should make it easier for all Americans to
rise, by opening the doors of college to all who are willing to work
or serve, and giving the middle class incentives to save and own a piece
of the rock.
On health care, some in our party still believe that Americans are willing
to pay any price and bear any burden to achieve universal coverage. We
believe in expanding access to health care, especially for children,
but in asking more responsibility from parents in return.
On national security, some in our party believe that all we have to say
on Iraq is "I told you so." To the contrary, Democrats must
show their commitment to staying the course and winning in Iraq. We believe,
as Tony Blair has said, that the gravest threat to our future is weapons
of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists or rogue states. Whatever
anyone thought before, this isn't Bush's war now, it's America's war,
and the free world's war on terror.
We prefer New Democrats, but here's an old Democrat with a vision that
still rings true 175 years later: Andrew Jackson. Parts of Jackson's
resume will look familiar to many of you: He served as a general; grew
up in North Carolina; stood tall and handsome, with a long face; and
even lost a presidential election despite getting the most votes. But
Jackson's words are what we remember. Our mission, he said, is "equal
opportunity for all, special privilege for none."
That's the mission we'll never get from George W. Bush. That's the reason
Bushism is collapsing. Most important, that's the vision our party and
our country need, and the kind of president we hope you'll set out to
be.
For two years, pundits told us that Bush couldn't lose. Today it's clear
that he can. But Bush could still survive if we let him put us back in
that old liberal stereotype and fail to offer a compelling new vision
of our own. If we tell the American people exactly what we'll do for
the country, and what we'll ask of them, the 2004 election is no longer
Bush's to lose. It's Democrats' to win.
