War, Economy Threaten Bush With Father’s Fate

WASHINGTON–Over the past week, it’s been difficult to say which has been more dramatic: the gains of the American military in Iraq or the losses in the job market at home.
For now, the drive into Baghdad has overshadowed the signs of continuing trouble in the economy, highlighted by last week’s report that employers shed another 108,000 jobs in March. But both of these dynamics are likely to shape President Bush’s hopes of a second term.
Indeed, the key to the 2004 election may be whether voters put more weight on Bush’s performance in protecting the country against foreign threats or his record on managing the domestic economy, many analysts say.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush has received much weaker grades from the public on the economy and other domestic issues, such as health care–a trend likely to be reinforced if economic growth doesn’t resume quickly.
For Bush, the gulf in public perceptions about his performance carries ominous echoes of the mixed public verdict that led to the defeat of his father after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
The younger Bush may be in a stronger position than his father to benefit politically from military success. Most experts in both parties agree that the current war in Iraq may carry more lasting relevance for voters than the Gulf War did, because the new conflict is linked to an ongoing concern about terrorism.
Yet the economy always casts a large shadow on presidential elections. Even in the weeks before the current war, economic anxiety steadily eroded both Bush’s approval ratings and the share of Americans who said they intended to support him for re-election.
Even as President George H.W. Bush was sliding toward defeat in 1992, he retained huge advantages over Democrat Bill Clinton when voters were asked who could better handle foreign policy; in one Gallup Poll only a month before Clinton’s victory, Americans by 3-to-1 said they preferred Bush on international affairs.
Clinton, though, consistently led Bush when Americans were asked who could better handle the economy. That advantage led James Carville, Clinton’s campaign manager, to coin the famous maxim: “It’s the economy, stupid” to describe how voters would make their choice.
The younger Bush finds himself in a similar position in one respect: like his father, he is drawing much stronger ratings for his handling of security issues and foreign affairs than he is on bread-and-butter domestic concerns.
Brian Riedl, an economic analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, said, “If the president is running for re-election with less jobs than there were a few years ago, it will be an easy issue for the Democrats to pound.”
Looking forward to 2004, both sides promise to contest the terrain that now favors the other. Democrats insist they will offer a forceful critique of Bush’s foreign-policy and security record, arguing that he has unnecessarily alienated the United States from traditional allies. And Bush seems certain to continue emphasizing tax cuts as an economic cure.
Many events could reshape the playing field for 2004: setbacks in the war’s endgame or in rebuilding Iraq; more terrorist attacks; military confrontation with Iran, North Korea or Syria; a sudden revival in the economy.
But without such dramatic changes, the possibility is looming that by 2004, Americans could judge Bush a success in defending the country and a failure at managing the economy. Such a divided judgment could be the recipe for another fiercely competitive election–what Carville calls “a fight to the finish.”