A reader takes me to task for my comment yesterday that George Bush has failed to unite the nation behind him and argues that Bush really has accomplished a unique feat by uniting the Republican Party behind the Bush Doctrine:

The New York Republican National Convention of 2004 was a hugely significant event. That was the lock-in. Liberal Republican after liberal Republican stood up and effectively took the pledge for victory in the Global War on Terror. Nobody can walk away from this now. And a Democrat was a key speaker on the war, and a liberal non-Republican activist was also an important speaker.

This is a huge deal for America's chances in a struggle against terror (or more bluntly jihad) that may be decades long. It means one of the two great parties is now locked in to this, as once it was locked in to anti-Communism. That stands for staying power.

With that I can agree but we should note that it still doesn’t address the fact as to why there’s a 50/50 split in the nation. For all the Zell Millers there appears to be an equal number of Dan Drezners. If you can capture liberal Republicans then surely you should be able to get the support of conservative Democrats? My reader goes on to say that:

Think of how many Republicans use Ronald Reagan practically as a proof text for what the party is supposed to be about. I think in decades to come George W. Bush may have the same standing, if not for the party as a whole, then for a significant fraction of it: the religious conservatives with whom he has such an affinity.

Well, the proof of that will be on Tuesday but the numbers to date do not indicate a 1984-style routing of the Democratic candidate, on the contrary. Bush may well deserve recognition for defining the War on Terror but as long as he hasn’t been able to bring a majority of Americans behind him on this issue any comparison to Ronald Reagan is doubtful at best. But my reader has a point about the Democrats as well:

And how was George W. Bush supposed to build his genuine Republican consensus on winning the war on terror, and get his lock-in, while accommodating the oh-so-sensible demands of the Fahrenheit 9/11 crowd?

To me, this is unreasonable. Fundamentally you have to decide who you are talking to. It is not possible to go half-way with Michael Moore for the sake of bipartisanship, and at the same time command the respect of everyone George W. Bush had to line up in his own party and its constituencies.

Well, the Fahrenheit 9/11 crowd is on the fringe of the Democratic Party; Kerry has stayed well clear of Michael Moore as far as I can see. Republicans will never be able to accommodate these people and that is precisely the point; the centrist Democrats could just as well cast their vote for Bush (as they did for Reagan) but it’s not likely they will do so this time. Is that their fault? Or are they alienated from the Republican Party precisely because Bush has been able to unite the Republicans by playing to the tune of the social conservative base? Karl Rove’s strategy of winning in a 50/50 situation by shoring up the conservative base may work but you have to wonder why they haven’t tried to throw a few bones to the social conservative base and make some serious inroads into Democratic territory. That’s what Reagan did.

Here’s another point: What about the economy? Didn’t Bush cut taxes and avoided a hard landing after the stock market bubble burst? True, the economy is not in as great a shape as it was a number of years ago, but interest rates are still low, the housing and job markets are in reasonable shape. So if you have a war on your hands that resulted from a direct attack on America and you are presiding over a pretty decent economy, how on earth is it possible that you can stay ahead only marginally if at all? Look at it this way: if the Democrats had been able to launch the 2004 campaign with a credible and compelling anti-terror candidate Bush would not have had a chance. My reader is right about Bush’s capabilities and record, but for now he is facing the judgment of the ballot box and not that of history books.

My sense is that Bush should have been uniter from day one. In the Florida aftermath he could have scored some valuable points in the center and 9/11 would have proven to be an even bigger boost for Bush than it turned out to be. A more intelligent message delivery would have helped sell the justified approach to Iraq and resonated with centrist Democrats, the Michael Moore crowd will never be pleased whatever you do. If Bush scores a decisive victory based on defending America and boosting the economy he will indeed be far more a uniter than a divider, but today’s numbers do not support that scenario.

OTB TJ Entry