Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6885902/
Bush looks to forge GOP legacy
President's aims to undercut Dems through targeted agenda
By Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris
Updated: 1:39 a.m. ET Jan. 30, 2005
When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the Democratic Party.
But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists from both parties say.
Legislation putting caps on civil damage awards, for instance, would choke income to trial lawyers, among the most generous contributors to the Democratic Party.
GOP strategists, likewise, hope that the proposed changes to Social Security can transform a program that has long been identified with the Democrats, creating a generation of new investors who see their interests allied with the Republicans.
Less visible policies also have sharp political overtones. The administration's transformation of civil service rules at federal agencies, for instance, would limit the power and membership of public employee unions an important Democratic financial artery.
An agenda spanning decades
If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic] interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White House.
All presidents weigh the political implications of their agendas, and hope that policies that prove popular will strengthen a party's claims on particular constituencies. What is notable about the Bush White House, some analysts believe, is the extent to which its agenda is crafted with an eye toward the long-term partisan implications.
"I've been assuming all along that creating the basis for a durable Republican majority was one of the major purposes of the administration's policy agenda," said Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego. "Indeed, I don't think these guys do anything without weighing the potential partisan consequences and are particularly attracted to policies that might increase the Republican coalition."
John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton and now head of the liberal Center for American Progress, said, "I think that most of their domestic agenda is driven and run by a political strategy as much as core fundamentals and belief."
His top example is the curbs on lawsuits. "Why would you make this the cause célèbre?" he asked. "The notion that this is a key element of their economic program is laughable. It's important to them in both directions both in organizing core elements of their business and doctor communities, and at least undermining a financial base of the Democratic Party."
Good policy or good politics?
Republicans note that limiting the growth of lawsuits and damage awards, as well as proposed investment accounts in Social Security, are ideas Bush and other conservatives have championed for years. The Bush agenda lies "at the wonderful intersection where good policy is good politics for Republicans and conservatives," said Stephen Moore, president of the Free Enterprise Fund, which is lobbying for the Social Security changes.
But, one rung away from the White House, many Bush allies make no effort to disguise their glee at the payoffs these ideas could bring to interest groups allied with the GOP, and the heartburn they would cause interest groups allied with the Democrats.
In an interview last week, for instance, Norquist unabashedly dissected the political overtones of legislation to limit lawsuits.
"This will defund significantly some of the trial lawyer community, and it rewards the business community, the Fortune 500 guys who have been increasingly supportive of the broad center-right coalition," he said.
Of specific provisions protecting gun manufacturers from class-action lawsuits, Norquist added, "This will strengthen the Second Amendment community, especially the NRA." He was referring to the National Rifle Association, a core GOP constituency.
The Bush administration has also challenged predominantly Democratic organized labor, especially public employee unions, on a host of fronts. The most recent was a major revision of civil service rules at the Department of Homeland Security that the administration would like to expand to the entire government over the next few years. The National Labor Relations Board has helped make it harder for unions to represent temporary workers, among several rule changes pushed by GOP appointees.
Growing the base, one policy at a time
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman rejected the notion that Bush's domestic agenda is driven by calculations about interest-group rewards and penalties. But he endorsed the idea that the agenda Bush will lay out in his nationally televised speech to Congress on Wednesday night has implications for the long-term balance of power between the parties.
He hopes that individual accounts under Social Security would produce a generation of voters less reliant on government as distributor of benefits, and more ready to identify with the Republican Party as the protector of their interests.
"Most people who are investors tend to vote Republican," said Mehlman, manager of Bush's reelection campaign. "This creates conditions under which voters are more likely to support politicians who are pro-growth, pro-ownership, pro-free market."
The expansive nature of the Bush agenda, said George C. Edwards III, a prominent presidential scholar at Texas A&M University, reflects how "this is a very strategic administration," which tries to use policies to advance its long-term party-building goals. "I think Karl Rove views this as his great legacy."
Much appetite for change?
The danger for Bush is that there may be less support than he imagines for major changes of the sort represented by proposals for Social Security and plans to limit civil damages, some experts say.
"These are not incremental policies," Edwards noted. "They have a greater risk of failure."
Jacobson agreed, especially on the question of Social Security. "I'm not so sure that a program designed to increase the exposure of ordinary Americans to market forces in ever-broader aspects of life is politically sustainable in the long run -- wait till the next recession."
Thus, the hope of Democrats is that Bush's move to lay claim to the issue of retirement security will in the end only buttress the Democratic advantage on this issue.
In the meantime, the financial contributions of various groups make plain they have decided where their interests lie in the coming debates over domestic policy.
Continuing a trend, lawyers gave Democrats $107.3 million in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and $39 million to Republicans. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave a total of $2.4 million, and 92 percent went to Democrats. Baron and Budd, a trial lawyer firm based in Dallas, gave 98 percent its $1.1 million in contributions to Democrats.
Public sector unions, which are most threatened by Bush administration labor initiatives, gave a total of $13.1 million in campaign contributions in 2004, of which $10.8 million went to Democrats.
The finance and investment banking community, which stands to benefit from the creation of private savings accounts financed through Social Security, provided overwhelming support to the Bush-Cheney campaign. The top 10 employers of Bush donors all are part of this sector, including Morgan Stanley, $604,480; Merrill Lynch, $580,004; and UBS Americas, $459,075.
"The dividend tax cut, expanding IRAs and private Social Security accounts are all examples of President Bush and Karl Rove understanding that the more people we can lure into the 'investor class' with private pools of private capital, the better it is for Republicans and Republican issues," Moore said.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
