The High Price of Victory

Why presidential success leads to failure

The most common cause of lethality in American politics is success, not failure. Our presidents, governors and mayors-and sometimes our state legislators-are elected to solve certain problems. They usually do. And, afterward, they are dismissed because the problem they specialize in is solved and the remaining issues concern topics at which they are not usually very skilled.

If terrorism were a key concern today, as it was in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, President George W. Bush would have high approval ratings and Rudy Giuliani would be a cinch to win the election. But because of his very success, Bush's approval ratings are in the basement and Giuliani is nine points behind Sen. Hillary Clinton in the most recent matchup polling.

The history of the American presidency is replete with examples of chief executives who were elected to solve a problem, did so, and were defeated over issues with which nobody would have chosen them to deal when they were selected to be president.

Consider the record:

* Lyndon Johnson was elected to complete the work of civil rights and to reduce poverty. He did. But then he fell over the Vietnam War. Nobody would have chosen Johnson as America's expert in dealing with communists in Asia.

* Jimmy Carter was elected to restore integrity in American politics. Without question, he did. But he was defeated because he was weak in the face of the Iran hostage crisis. Being tough was scarcely his specialty.

* We made George H. W. Bush president to wind down the Cold War and, by the end of his term, it was history. But he lost his re-election bid over the economy, never his strong suit.

In George W. Bush's case, he was elected to cut taxes and men re-elected to tame terrorism. Now his party faces defeat over issues such as healdi care, the economy, the trade deficit and, of course, Iraq. But had he been less than totally successful in stymieing new terrorist attacks within the continental United States, we might well value him and his party more.

Historically, it makes sense. We solve the problems on which our democracy focuses, choosing our presidents-for the most part, wisely-to deal with our needs each year and in each cycle in our history.

A big part of the oscillation relates to the historical affinity of each party with each issue. For reasons that go back decades, Democrats are perceived as better able to deal with issues like health care, Social security, Medicare, the elderly, the environment, education and, in most circumstances, the economy. On the other hand, Republicans have a built-in advantage in coping with crime, defense and national security issues, terrorism and taxes. It is always possible for a party to convert an issue to its favor, but it is highly difficult.

After years of effort, Bill Clinton's focus on gun control and extra police brought him even with the Republicans on the crime issue. George W. Bush had to devote his entire 2000 convention and much of his campaign to education to bring Republicans even with Democrats on the issue. In both cases, as soon as the president stopped focusing on the issue, it reverted to its normal partisan skew.

Because each issue is so indelibly identified with one party or the other, as our national focus turns from problems that have been solved (typically those addressed by the incumbent administration) to those which remain unsolved (typically those that are the usual focus of the opposition) the political cycle swings with it.

It is not really a pendulum but rather an upward spiral. Some would call it a screw.

[Sidebar]

Had Bush been less than totally successful in stymieing new terrorist attacks ...we might well value him and his party more.

[Author Affiliation]

Dick Morris is an author and political commentator. To get his columns for free by e-mail several times each week, sign up at DickMorris.com.